Christians who take the Bible literally?

Question

Why do so many of you use the King James Version for this? If you are going to take it literally, shouldn't you use something translated literally, like Richmond Lattimore's translation of the New Testament?

Lattimore is highly looked upon as the best modern translator of Ancient and Hellenistic Greek. He translated the Illiad, and his translation of that is considered the best English translation. Also, he was not a theologian so he didn't try to make the Bible say anything, he just translated.

So why, even non-Literal Christians, would you use the King James Version of the New Testament over Richmond Lattimores?

This isn't to bash anyone, I just don't get it. When I came across this translation I wondered why every English-speaking Christian doesn't use it.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Richmond-Lattimore/dp/0865475245

goinupru- wouldn't you want to have the best translation to understand the Word as best as possible?

Answer 1

I trust the JPS translation since they are translating from the original language

Answer 2

Wow! What a question! A couple preliminaries: 1. The Bible is a collection of books, a library, that has been bound together under the covers of one book. 2. The Bible contains many different kinds of writings. (Think of a newspaper: news, recipes, weather, comics.) Knowing the kind of writing, helps obtain the meaning. Consider you don't read the sports the way you do a recipe or you don't read the comics the way you read the front page. The same is true regarding the Bible. 3. Some of those books were written to be taken literally; others were meant to be taken metaphorically. Why? The authors at that time connected together events that were similar in one respect and placed them side by side. (Almost like stringing pearls on a necklace.) 4. The real trick is knowing which books to take literally and which to take metaphorically. One clue is to ask the question: Does this incident remind me of any other incident in the Bible? Example: As Jesus is baptized the voice of the Father is heard and the Holy Spirit comes down in the form of a dove. Does this remind us of any other water incident? You might call to mind the Genesis story when the Spirit of God hovered over the water. Could it be the gospel writer wants us to make that connection? It's possible. If he does want us to make that connection, what is he saying? He could be saying that Jesus' Baptism in some way indicates a New Creation, since the Spirit of God hovered over the waters at the beginning of Creation and now we have that same Spirit hovering over Jesus. Note: We have the literal story of Jesus' Baptism, while as we read it we see or hear echoes of other Biblical stories which makes us consider that the gospel writer might be impling more than what appears on the surface. Does the literal meaning invalidate the metaphorical? No! Does the metaphorical invalidate the literal? No, again. The two approaches complement each other. To get the full meaning it is first necessary to look at the literal meaning; then it is necessary to look for connections with other stories. What do Christians think about this? It's possible to view the Bible entirely from a literal standpoint, but it's impossible to view the Bible only from a metaphorical perspective. The metaphorical builds on the literal. What do I think? Let people believe what they want to believe.

Answer 3

Translation has every bearing on the content, because the Bible exists to us solely as a written document. No one lives who wrote or remembers any of it. Therefore, we have only the words on the pages to tell us it's content. The someone who wrote those words in English translated them from Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Those four languages aren't written in the same structure, and don't contain the same words. (Greek, for example, as one word, 'chloe' that English must translate into five - 'first green shoots of spring'.) The translator in question picked the words he thought best, based on his education, knowledge, and experiences. But there's no way to know how right he was. Chances are, someone in modern times with much more access to education, reference material, and (except for Latin) native speakers, would find a different translation of many words.

Then there's translation of content based solely on the translator's knowledge and experiences. Once, for example, a man found a stranger on his lawn in the middle of the night. Not a native English speaker, the stranger was lost. Paranoid, the man pulls a gun and tells the stranger to, "Freeze!" The stranger doesn't know this is slang for, 'stop where you are.' He only knows that 'freeze' is how you get ice. He walks toward the man, and is shot and killed. This really happened. Not because the stranger's translation was incorrect, but because he had not yet had the experience to encounter this particular translation.

Even if you could translate each language directly word for word into English, would that make those written words literal? Unless you're reading stereo instructions, nothing written is literal. That's not how writers write. If they did, everything written would be extremely dull. Writers tell their stories through literary techniques. Though metaphor, defamiliarization, conceit, and irony. That's what makes it interesting. That's why you read it. Even if the story's true, the literary techniques the writer chooses determines the content. Read two books about an historical event by two different authors, and you can notice how one author's description of the events alters your perception of it from the other's.

Since the Bible tells stories, and doesn't read like stereo instructions, we can only assume the writers intended for a lot of people to want to read it. And, in fact, the the Bible mentions several times that it should be shared.

I've several more points on this subject, but since this is so long, I'll leave it at these main two. Translation is everything to content, and no one writes in literal terms. Thanks for reading the whole thing, and giving me the chance to share my thoughts. It's a very interesting topic.

Answer 4

No book should be taken literally, if it has been wrote down by man, it shouldn't be.

I think many religions take Bibles and so forth literally because they are simply pleading for something to believe in, they don't care what it is, they just need something to grasp.

I keep an open mind about religions, I feel that there is something higher than us, I feel that very few of the stories within the Bible are true.

I don't believe in anyones religion due to the simple fact that, I don't know where we came from, and I refuse to judge something that may be real.

I can not say that the stories in the Bible are true, because it's impossible to know, we weren't alive in those days, for all we know, the Bible could have been a bed time story in ancient times, or even a fairytale novel.

That's what people seem to forget, we aren't the only civilization to write made-up stories.

I doubt that the Bible is 100% true, and I most definitely don't think that people should take the Bible literally.

If there is something higher than us, be it God, Goddess or even an Alien civilization, then so be it, I'm not going to judge and say that I know this, or I know that, because none of us know anything.

So, as for the Bible, it could be anything, it could be true, it could be fake, or it could be someone's most personal thoughts in ancient times, a journal of thoughts if you will.

Remember, we are here without answers, we are here without knowledge, we do not, and possibly will never know if there is a higher power.

Answer 5

This is similar to a question that I regularly ponder. In my opinion, much of it comes down to the comfort behind it. There are traditions, customs and entire faiths that are based upon mistranslations of the Bible. There are multiple translations that are incorrect, and this fact it is widely agreed upon (outside of the world of Theology). But... how easy is it to correct these falsehoods that have been built into people's lives? The thought that some of their beliefs are wrong would be frightening and cause such a feeling of insecurity. It just seems easier to continue in the current path....

Answer 6

I use the Revised Standard Version. I don't use the King James Version. I prefer the Revised Standard Version.

Answer 7

I'm learning biblical hebrew right now and when I get a little more under my belt I plan on translating the old testament for myself.

One day I'll learn greek and move on to the new testament

Answer 8

the bible is not all speaking literal. Some of it is figuratively speaking. Some is in poetic style. Christians are infallible, and so are their intrepretations. Only the Church who gave us the bible can lay claim to the true intrepretation, which was inspired by the holy spirit.

Answer 9

Probably because God hasn't called anyone to a "translation", but to the message contained within it. Way too many folks get caught up in side issues that have no bearing on anything. The personal preference of one translation over another is just that...a personal preference.

Its the content in those pages that is the Issue.That is where the gospel of OUR salvation is found.

Answer 10

Some people are just very rigid in everything they do.
It isn't based on logic or reason, not even their own opinion.