I want to ask this question here because I think we have probably the most diverse set of voices in the blogosphere. Except maybe for CNET.
Recently I had a conversation with someone who was adamant that because our church used the New Living Translation of the bible in our pews we were somehow less “biblical”. Of course this person was arguing vehemently that the King James Version bible is the truest form of scripture. By no means is this person dumb or a KJV 1611′er by any stretch.
So I have to ask…Really? In my experience and my study the KJV version is probably the worst for translation accuracy. So I’m miffed why people fight so hard for this.*
Thoughts?
*THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE MESSAGE!
This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 14th, 2010 at 3:15 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
35 Comments(+Add)
I like the poetry of the KJV and I memorized verses with that translation. However I believe the best translation comes through living epistles. That translation continues to be an ongoing struggle since each believer is required to create his own behavioral lexicon.
There are some folks for whom the church must “feel” a certain way for it to be genuine. This “feel” is probably best captured in uncomfortable clothing, gothic architecture, “reverent” music, and Elizabethan linguistics (best provided by the KVJ – the original King Jimmy, not the RAV/NKJV which doesn’t sound right).
However, because “the flesh” is also held in low regard within this particular brand of Christianity, admitting (even to oneself) that “the feel” is what is important is far too worldly. Thus, it must be the actual words/buildings/music/dress which are appropriate for Christians, and not the atmosphere they provide to many of these individuals.
In my experience, many such folks (but not all) are ex-Catholics or Lutherans (ex- or current) whose childhood associations are important in this formation, which is why 1611 KJV isn’t so important as the “thees”, “thous”, and “wherefore arts” contained within the preferred translations…
where does the nlt fall on the literal translation – dynamic equivalence – paraphrase continuum?
From good ol’ Wikipedia:
The thing I find funny about folks who do insist on using the King James Version is that when it was first published, it was considered very inferior to the Geneva Bible by most Protestants. The King James Version was really seen as a politically motivated translation with deliberate distortions to prop up the divine right of kings. So it’s sort of ironic that many people who insist on the KJV are often staunch Calvinists.
King James was able to kill two birds with his translation:
1. His Catholic wife hated the Geneva bible because of the commentary notes.
2. He was able to see his gay love Will Shakespeare more often.
It’s a far inferior translation compared to today’s translations because they didn’t have as many copies available to them.
The iambic pentameter does make it easier to memorize and some feel that it makes it sound prettier as Rick mentioned.
The key is where both the Geneva and the KJV was translated from. It was translated from the textus receptus, as opposed to the questionable Alexandrian documents. The modern versions differ in some significant doctrinal positions, eliminating the name of Jesus, the blood of Christ, and the nature of God in several areas. 1 John 5:17 is most significant, and in many modern versions the story of the adultress is eliminated.
The big problem that many have is that Wescort and Hort, liberal theologians, translated the manuscripts that many of the modern versions come from.
#6 – That information can be found at the grassy knoll in Dallas, where the skull and bones have their anual meeting.
A little know fact: Westcott and Hort marched in the first gay pride parade.
WOW, John Chisham, thank you for taking me back down the conspiracy theory trail.
I John 5:17 is translated wrong in the KJV. The Geneva Bible doesn’t agree with it either.
Erasmus admitted he doctored it in LLX. The NASB is probably the most word for word accurate translation, which of course begs the question which is more important; Word for word for thought for thought.
Phil,
thanks – if that’s the case, then i assume it’s a fine pew bible… tough i am partial to the nas and the esv.
rick, gay pride parades were around long before wescott and hort… in fact it was actually king james himself who way was the marshal for the first parade – the very guy who sponsored and guided the translation that bears his name…
Almost no one reads from the original 1611. Only the Textus Receptus can save.
Westcott and Hort also reviewed movies.
i prefer word for when as much as possible…
more evidence of being liberal and gay…
Almost every thought will not translate 100%. There is always something lost in language, understanding, context, and colloquialisms.
Enter Holy Spirit.
The Auca Indians could not understand the gospel until the TR was translated in their language – after they had a language.
There is such a thing as Bible idolatry.
All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. – kjv
vs.
All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. – niv
[sarcasm] well, if this is MOST significant I an convinced [/sarcasm]
I know you’re joking here, but seriously do a little studying and it’s pretty easy to find a lot of evidence that King James like guys as much as women, if not more.
re 17; i’ve heard that enough to make the joke about it.
King James best friend was Queen Steve.
i guess you have your answer chris…
For the verse that John was referencing, I’m guessing he meant the one that people use “to prove” the Trinity. I’ll have to look it up and get back to you
I believe PB was referring to 1 John 5:7 which was an attempt to make the case for the Trinity. (not 1 John 5:17)
Maybe so, but at least it contained the full 73 books.
Do you mean 66 Brett?
Word for word when studying. Thought for thought for devotional and public reading. I’m sold on the NLT for public reading.
Paul C,
No, I mean the original 1611 KJV that had all 73.
yeah – that makes sense… i figured he made a mistake, but didn’t care enough to look it up myself. since i give the argument about as much stock as… oh maybe THIS
You are correct, Brett.
Oh, Snap!
I was waiting for the Apocrypha to make a showing! Thanks, Brett!
A little known fact:
A Las Vegas entertianment duo was originally known as “Westcott and Hort” but because of copywrite issues they had to change to “Siegfried and Roy”.
What I want to know is why do we baptize for the dead?
Wow…quite the litany of responses. At least early on.
My favorites:
N.A.S.B. E.S.V. for study.
N.L.T. for public reading
Truth be told I use a multiple version study bible to prepare talks/lessons for students.
Actually, Chris, I recommend (per Christian P) Logos, which lets you pull all of the different versions and commentaries together, along with the original Greek/Hebrew and different textual approaches. Amazing stuff…
The absolute best is the free downloadable bible from e-sword. It’s as powerful as any off the shelf software I have seen and did I say it’s free? It comes with many of the older translations and you can buy any of the most modern translations for about $15.00 as an add-on module.
http://www.e-sword.com
I agree John, e-sword is excellent, I’ve used it for years!