To Christian believers, the Word of God given in the Bible does not change from generation to generation. However, the English language is dynamic and ever-changing. Many older words, in early English translations of the Bible, can be difficult to understand and easy to misinterpret.
The main purpose of the Protestant Reformation was to release the Bible from the chains of a language few could understand, into the spoken language of the day.
William Tyndale, who fought and died for the right to print the Bible in the English language of his day, boldly declared to one of his critics, “If God spare my life, I will see to it that the boy who drives the plowshare knows more of the scripture than you…”
So why do so many English-speaking Christians reject virtually ALL English versions of the Bible since the King James version came off the press in 1611?
Surely as Christians we're called to worship the God who gave us the Bible, not to worship the Bible: isn't that idolatry?
2007-06-29 21:05:35 · 13 answers · asked by Jifri 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
God gives us all talents, and I am using some of mine to ask questions and seek answers. Your answers are helping me. My feeling is that we should not over-react to a few bad modern translations by rejecting ALL new translations.
2007-06-29 23:05:47 · update #1
Given a choice, I would rather not read any book written in the language known as Early Modern English, unless I am studying Will Shakespeare, Kit Marlowe, Ben Johnson, etc because I find it very difficult to understand.
Reading the KJV doesn't help me to understand the Bible, as I have to translate it first into Modern English and then try to understand what the scripture means.
I much prefer to read the Bible as translated into today's Modern English directly from old Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin manuscripts, as long as the translation is accurate (as judged by Biblical scholars) and not biased toward a particular Biblical sect's dogma.
To those trying to patronize me: I read the scripture, read my Bible commentaries, and pray to God for guidance.
2007-07-03 05:52:18 · update #2
I've never understood Chrsitians with a slavish devotion to just the KJV. I don't see anything wrong with other translations of the bible as long as the translators were sincere and led by the Holy Spirit. I agree that the bible is for everyone and should be readable by everyone, and I believe that God will ensure than his word will survive attempts by man to translate it into modern language.
2007-06-29 21:10:34 · answer #1 · answered by doppler 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When I first became a believer in 1968 the only popular version of the Bible was the King James Version. There were other translations but most denominations recommended the KJV to be read. Since that time there have been a flood of new translations and a freedom to choose which one you read. In the 1990's a version was brought out which follows the context of the KJV but has brought the language upto date, The New King James Bible. This is the one I use now as I can follow some one reading out in public the KJV. If I wish to understand a passage I read all the different versions to see the different ways the verses have been set out. The Amplified Bible helps a lot as it places the alterate rendering of the verses in brackets.
I certinly would not stick my head in the sand and say that the KJV is the only version you should read. It is still valid and should be compared to modern version to get the meaning of the old fasioned words.
2007-06-29 22:49:12 · answer #2 · answered by Alan C 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Unless you are an expert in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek it is useful to get someone who is, to translate it for you.
God's Word doesn't change but unfortunately, human words change their meaning through usage (and abuse), so getting an accurate translation is an on-going exercise. (e.g. I'm good used to mean I'm well behaved, not I'm healthy)
A few tips for selecting a translation are:-
Read the preface to see if it is the work of one translator, or if the translation was checked by others (or a committee).
Does the translator or team, belong to a particular sect or cult with doctrines at major variance to other Christians.
Has the translation been done directly from early texts in the original languages, or has it gone through several languages on the way.
From the above criteria, the New International Version (NIV), the New King James Version (NKJV), and the English Standard Bible (ESB), for example should be OK for a few decades.
www.biblegateway.com has many versions and the links below go to the prefaces.
2007-07-02 02:24:31 · answer #3 · answered by mikeoxley242 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The last scripture in Revelation says not to add or remove to the bible . It doesn't say not to translate it into different languages. The king james was translated into the language of the time. Today , it has been changed by most bible writers since they all have their own opinion and what it means to them. To get a reliable translation, you need to compare scriptures with others in the same bible. It's not my expertise, but personally I use the King James, The Jehova Witness bible, and the Bible in Living English. They go from ' thou ,hast ,thy ' to ' you, have,etc.etc.' and ' ya'll ,goin', fur, ain't (these last words i have extremely exaggerated) , but you get the picture. God,s name in the old King James bible is Jehovah, while in most other bibles it uses the name as a description rather than a name, like ' God '' in cap's . The Jehova Witness bible uses jehovah over and over everywhere God Almighty or The LORD is used. One thing to remember, a translation is the most modern language used at the time and a version is sometimes radically opinionated by the writer.
2007-06-30 02:53:43 · answer #4 · answered by good question 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm in several minds about this question. Still, there's an element of truth in what you're saying, so probably the most helpful answer is that these Christians have looked briefly at some of the other translations, seen the rather obvious revisionist or sectarian agendas that many of them promote, and think (quite wrongly) that the KJV instead was translated and edited by saintly people whose only motive was to transmit faithfully what they received from past ages. The very name of the book ought to dispel that idea.
2007-06-29 22:05:11 · answer #5 · answered by Voyager 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A very good question. Over time the words in the bible have been changed. They are still being changed, today. God's name has been changed to Lord and God through out the bible. If you take certain new bibles and compare them to the KJV you will see that they are rewording the bible. Saying Jesus is God, etc. Many people do not have a problem with this. I DO. Just because Jesus said the Father and I are one, does not mean he was saying he is God. It means in general, that they have one purpose, work together, etc. Just as a husband and wife are one & Gods people are one. I could go on. However, I'm not trying to push it on you. Just give examples. Also, in the bible it says the truth be revieled, not to all, but to those who truely seek God and those who are chosen. As I asked in a previous ? You do realize not all people who call themselves Christians believe the same. Also, not all people who say they are Christians are truely Christians, according to Christ.
2007-06-29 21:21:20 · answer #6 · answered by Ann S 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Worship of God cannot be seperated from the bible. It is not God's intent that all should understand his Word, where did you get that idea from
ann s, you must not have read your bible lately. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. It's not just that Jesus said I and the Father are one, there are many passages in scripture that teach us Jesus is God you must have missed them
2007-06-29 21:19:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe its because King James was a Scottish king even we Scots don't know how acurate he was at translating from Latin to english
2007-07-03 04:42:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole point of it is that it can be understood by as many people who are willing to look into it. However, its message should not be watered down, even though parts of it may be difficult take in, just for the sake of getting the more pallatable parts into greater circulation.
2007-06-29 21:14:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I thought it was already trapped in an ancient language ...
I mean, how many people in the general public can read Aramaic?
I know I can't ...
And just because you translate it into another language doesn't mean you've translated it right ...
2007-06-29 21:13:02 · answer #10 · answered by Ajsansker 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋