A version of the Bible, what do you think?

[rejoice44]

The "vile" quote is from Hort about the Textus Receptus, not the KJV. Maybe he thought the KJV was vile, but that's not the quote. So let's be accurate and not get sloppy and say something he didn't say. Secondly, just because Hort said the TR was vile, doesn't mean that advocates of modern versions think the KJV is vile (see post#31 where that claim was made). So let's not get so sloppy with the facts and take a claim from Hort about the TR being vile and then attributing that to all modern version advocates about the KJV. This is false. This is a straw man. This is not Christ-like. As Christians, we need to accurate represent those who we disagree with whether they are other Christians or non-Christians.

The Textus Receptus is text received, or received text. The KJB was the received text. Hort backed up his words with his actions by setting aside the received text (King James Bible) and using exclusively his new found material from Tischendorf. Facts are facts, even if some people don't like them. There is nothing I said about Hort that cannot be proven.

The only reason I don't spend loads of time pointing out less than perfect translations in the NIV or the Message or any other version is because there is no NIVO people on board claiming the NIV is perfect. If there were, then I'd be countering them too.

I never said the King James Bible was perfect, but it is adequate. If it has problems I wouldn't know what they are. I had excepted it as God's word a long time ago.

As for memorization, do you have any objective statistics to back up your claim? The only people I can see buying that claim are those in the KJVO camp.

You do not need statistics when you experience something first hand.

We work in child evangelism and they use the NIV so it is necessary that I use it. If the NIV was the only Bible out there there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that children in a school community attend various church groups, with various bible translations being used. This also is a problem when you have a community bible study and four or five different translations are present.

Bible translators have presented us with a tower of Babel and without cause.

[salesman]

For all you KJVO people, I have a question. When we translate the Bible into a foreign language that has never had the scriptures before, is it better to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew, or do we translate the KJV into the new language? I feel it is better to start with source material.
Similarly, as the English language has changed and evolved with our changing society, is it not better to translate the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have available into a form of English that is more readily understood to the novice believer? KJV English is antiquated enough to darken the wisdom of the scriptures to many modern believers. It is almost a foreign language. Why would we equate ease of use of God's word with something evil?

[IMINXTC]

That is actually the gist of the issues. Rather than merely a problem with English usage, significant choices have been made regarding the use of the body of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and that is the real issue with most who question or have difficulty with what has transpired in the last 100 yrs or so.

And in answer to your question, non-English translators should take careful note of how and why huge numbers of certain manuscripts were disregarded in lieu of less than 1% of manuscript evidence - actually, predominantly, two manuscripts, for the most part: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as the basis for modern translations.

Not to hijack, but to address the question.

[rejoice44]

For all you KJVO people, I have a question. When we translate the Bible into a foreign language that has never had the scriptures before, is it better to translate from the original Greek and Hebrew, or do we translate the KJV into the new language? I feel it is better to start with source material.

We do not have the original Greek and Hebrew. As far as the New Testament is concerned we don't know positively what language the original letters were written in.

Similarly, as the English language has changed and evolved with our changing society, is it not better to translate the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts we have available into a form of English that is more readily understood to the novice believer? KJV English is antiquated enough to darken the wisdom of the scriptures to many modern believers. It is almost a foreign language.

Disagree that the King James language is less understandable. No matter what translation, the Bible is not a simple book. It takes considerable studying and prayer to understand the meanings. The King James has a poetic flow, unlike the other translations, that makes it easier to memorize. No one is rewriting Shakespeare to make it easier to read. I find that many times the King James is easier to understand than the NIV due to sentence structure.

The received text (Textus Receptus) is just that, it was received and handed down from generation to generation, and those generations would not tolerate changes in content. If you don't think so compare the ERV and the ASV with the KJB. You will find that the wording is almost identical except for the places where the corrupt manuscripts varied from the received text. The reason for this is that Christian in years past would not tolerate a vast change in the reading of the Bible. Compare that with the NIV and "The Message" that completely change the wording and sentence structure.

Why would we equate ease of use of God's word with something evil?

Changing the words of God is evil, God condemns those that due it.

[Luke34]

Complaining about there being too many translations of a text seems sort of backwards. Shouldn't we be glad that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are texts that inspire translators of every generation and that we have an incredible wealth of versions in English to choose from? After all, ALL translations are different texts, both in regards to each other and to the original...there is no such thing as an "exact" translation. And there can't be. So how can it be a bad thing that we have so many different versions (some of them bad and some good and some superlative)?

Besides, if everyone had done the same and complained about "too many versions," we wouldn't have the King James Version at all. After all, why BOTHER translating the Bible again when we already have the Geneva Bible and the Douay-Rheims Bible (etc)? It'll just confuse people. Also, the King James is not in any way the only translation with a "poetic flow"...and the Shakespeare comparison doesn't apply because Shakespeare wrote in English and we don't need any translations at all...and your argument basically seems to be "This version is fine and I like it so let's not have any others ever."

The thing is, the King James version is fine and I do like it. Parts of it contain some of the greatest writing in the English language. But just because someone already did something surpassingly well doesn't mean other people can't also do it well in different ways. And I'm always embarrassed to admit liking the Authorized Version because of all this KJVO junk. It's like if people who enjoyed Milton had to deal with other people who also enjoyed Milton but claimed that we shouldn't have had any more poems in English after Milton because why bother.

[rejoice44]

Complaining about there being too many translations of a text seems sort of backwards. Shouldn't we be glad that the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are texts that inspire translators of every generation and that we have an incredible wealth of versions in English to choose from? After all, ALL translations are different texts, both in regards to each other and to the original...there is no such thing as an "exact" translation. And there can't be. So how can it be a bad thing that we have so many different versions (some of them bad and some good and some superlative)?

The Muslims say we don't have God's word, that we await each day waiting for a new revelation of God's word to be found in a cave, or some remote spot such as a waste basket. How do you answer that?

Besides, if everyone had done the same and complained about "too many versions," we wouldn't have the King James Version at all. After all, why BOTHER translating the Bible again when we already have the Geneva Bible and the Douay-Rheims Bible (etc)? It'll just confuse people. Also, the King James is not in any way the only translation with a "poetic flow"...and the Shakespeare comparison doesn't apply because Shakespeare wrote in English and we don't need any translations at all...and your argument basically seems to be "This version is fine and I like it so let's not have any others ever."

Evidently you haven't compared the work, or considered that the first English translated bibles were introduced to put the Word of God in the hand of the common man. The first English bibles were produced by men under terrible stress from the Catholic Church and without proper resources to do a proper job. The first was Wycliffe's Bible in the fifteenth Century, the second was Tyndale's which was done under extreme pressure, Tyndale being executed for his work. The reason for the variety of translations before the King James was due to the reformation and the battle between the Protestants and the Vatican.

Tyndale's bible was a Protestant bible, while the Bishop's Bible and the Douay-Rheims bible's were Vatican Bibles.

The King James Bible was authorized by a Protestant king, and that bible took authority away from the Vatican. The Vatican had fought against any English translation, but when the Protestants provided a bible in English they sought to replace it with Bibles consistent with Catholic practices. That battle never ended.

The thing is, the King James version is fine and I do like it. Parts of it contain some of the greatest writing in the English language. But just because someone already did something surpassingly well doesn't mean other people can't also do it well in different ways. And I'm always embarrassed to admit liking the Authorized Version because of all this KJVO junk. It's like if people who enjoyed Milton had to deal with other people who also enjoyed Milton but claimed that we shouldn't have had any more poems in English after Milton because why bother.

How would you like it if I started rewriting Milton's poems, and people would buy them not knowing I changed the wording.

[Luke34]

The Muslims say we don't have God's word, that we await each day waiting for a new revelation of God's word to be found in a cave, or some remote spot such as a waste basket. How do you answer that?

What does that have to do with anything?

Evidently you haven't compared the work, or considered that the first English translated bibles were introduced to put the Word of God in the hand of the common man. The first English bibles were produced by men under terrible stress from the Catholic Church and without proper resources to do a proper job. The first was Wycliffe's Bible in the fifteenth Century, the second was Tyndale's which was done under extreme pressure, Tyndale being executed for his work. The reason for the variety of translations before the King James was due to the reformation and the battle between the Protestants and the Vatican.

Tyndale's bible was a Protestant bible, while the Bishop's Bible and the Douay-Rheims bible's were Vatican Bibles.

I know all of this in a general sense (though the Bishops' Bible is a Protestant translation, not a Catholic one), but the narrative throughline is mostly fiction. The Geneva Bible was available to the general public in the vernacular before the King James Version (and was the Bible of Shakespeare, Milton, and Donne), and its translators (living in Protestant England, like the King James translators) were under no duress from the Catholic Church. This idea that the KJV was the first time "the people" were able to read the Bible is a fiction. So why did we "need" the King James Version? One is enough, right?

The King James Bible was authorized by a Protestant king, and that bible took authority away from the Vatican. The Vatican had fought against any English translation, but when the Protestants provided a bible in English they sought to replace it with Bibles consistent with Catholic practices. That battle never ended.

It doesn't make any sense to say that the KJV "took authority away" from the Vatican. The authority of the Vatican had already been usurped when Henry VIII declared himself, not the pope, the head of the church. Vernacular Bibles had nothing to do with it either way. (Also, not "any" English translation. The Douay-Rheims, as you yourself mentioned, was an English Bible produced by the Vatican, though it was based on St. Jerome's Vulgate and not on the original Hebrew and Greek. The D-R New Testament did actually influence the KJV translators, and in turn, an 18th-century revision of the Douay-Rheims incorporated a significant amount the King James Bible's language.)

How would you like it if I started rewriting Milton's poems, and people would buy them not knowing I changed the wording.

Are you aware that Milton wrote in English, and that the Bible is not in English? Your version would be more like you either corrupted the actual Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible (which is not what we're discussing), or if you were translating Milton into another language and your version was different from a previous version. Which happens all the time, and is completely fine with me and everyone else. The King James version is a rare example of a translation of a work becoming a classic work in the target language, like with Luther's German Bible or Alexander Pope's Homer or the Arthur Golding version of Ovid's Metamorphoses. But again, just because Pope's Iliad was widely influential and beloved doesn't mean no one was ever allowed to translate the Iliad again because we already had a good version.

[IMINXTC]

It isn't difficult these days , especially with the WordWideWeb (ahem), to carefully compare versions, side-by-side, verse-by-verse, rather than form opinions or choose translations based upon how smoothly they read.

No believer who does this on his or her own can walk away saying there are not some major differences between versions and between modern and Received Text versions. These differences, which are usually omitted verses and words numbering in the tens of thousands, in most cases, have to do with things pertaining to the person of Christ, His nature and the plan of salvation.

Marginal notations in most versions will explain that the discovery of superior manuscripts and modern scholarship are the reasons for the changes.

They are speaking of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and a smattering of codices and scraps of parchment or papyrii , almost all, except for a few exceptions, discovered in the 1800's.

I thank God for the consistency of His transmitted word in all versions, but I mourn and highly suspect the agenda behind the paraphrasing and watering-down of the scriptures in the modern age. I think it shows up up in the relativism and inconsistent testimony of the Church.

Not a pleasant thing to suggest, but a concerned believer would do well to compare bible-translations and to research them before settling down with a translation merely because it sounds good or is favored by other believers.

[Luke34]

I thank God for the consistency of His transmitted word in all versions, but I mourn and highly suspect the agenda behind the paraphrasing and watering-down of the scriptures in the modern age. I think it shows up the relativism and inconsistent testimony of the Church.

The way to decide if a passage is inaccurate is to compare it with the original text. Not another translation. You can't decide that if something is different than the KJV or similar versions then it's "wrong" or "watered down" and then say that the other versions are inferior because they have so many inaccuracies. That's question-begging. If you have an argument about a specific passage that compares both versions to the original text, then go ahead, or go ahead and compare them on aesthetic grounds (as opposed to truth-/accuracy-based claims). But one translation not being the same as another translation is no proof of "paraphrasing" or "watering down."

[IMINXTC]

When one takes a close examination of the body of manuscripts behind the received text and the manuscripts adopted in lieu of them, and the emergence of the Critical Text, then, most certainly, one can make the charge of a paraphrasing or watering-down from the received to the modern, critical text.

If you are telling me that the translators, using the received text were in error and that the text behind modern versions is superior, I would suggest you embark on a concise study of the issues, which you are eminently qualified to do.

My humble suggestion to the OP and all believers is to do your homework on the versions issue and be persuaded in your own minds.

I tend to get very heated on the topic, however, am not up to digging up the resources, and will, for that reason, opt-out at this point.

[rejoice44]

It doesn't make any sense to say that the KJV "took authority away" from the Vatican. The authority of the Vatican had already been usurped when Henry VIII declared himself, not the pope, the head of the church.

The following is an excerpt from the undergraduate life of Henry Bradshaw, who later became head of
the British library, and who was the one who defended the authenticity of the Codex Sinaticus.

You say the Vatican wasn't in a battle for power in England, but that was not the case

In connection with this phase of feeling, I may mention an anecdote communicated to me by Sir A. Gordon. Towards the end of 1850 great excitement was caused by the so-called " Papal aggression." The pope, influenced by the sporadic conversions to Rome, and considering the time ripe for a great stroke, had set up a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, conferring on Cardinal Wiseman the title of Archbishop of Westminster. All England was [36 UNDERGRADUATE LIFE]. in arms at once. The University of Cambridge, like other public bodies, addressed the queen on the subject. Some of the hotter heads among the undergraduates, anxious not to be behind their seniors, determined to get up a meeting of those in statu pupillari to denounce the pope and the Puseyites. Sir William Harcourt and Mr Llewellyn Davies, then a scholar of Trinity, were the chief promoters of this movement. Some of the unpopular High Church party were not unwilling to face the storm, and to figure as martyrs ; but the cooler members, perceiving the mischief and bitterness likely to be engendered by such a meeting as was proposed, resolved to put a stop to it. A deputa- tion accordingly waited on the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Corrie of Jesus, and requested him to forbid the meeting. Brad- shaw, along with his friends Hort and Westcott, was among those most active in organizing this opposition, which was successful, and the meeting was stopped.

[Luke34]

The following is an excerpt from the undergraduate life of Henry Bradshaw, who later became head of
the British library, and who was the one who defended the authenticity of the Codex Sinaticus.

You say the Vatican wasn't in a battle for power in England, but that was not the case

In connection with this phase of feeling, I may mention an anecdote communicated to me by Sir A. Gordon. Towards the end of 1850 great excitement was caused by the so-called " Papal aggression." The pope, influenced by the sporadic conversions to Rome, and considering the time ripe for a great stroke, had set up a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, conferring on Cardinal Wiseman the title of Archbishop of Westminster. All England was [36 UNDERGRADUATE LIFE]. in arms at once. The University of Cambridge, like other public bodies, addressed the queen on the subject. Some of the hotter heads among the undergraduates, anxious not to be behind their seniors, determined to get up a meeting of those in statu pupillari to denounce the pope and the Puseyites. Sir William Harcourt and Mr Llewellyn Davies, then a scholar of Trinity, were the chief promoters of this movement. Some of the unpopular High Church party were not unwilling to face the storm, and to figure as martyrs ; but the cooler members, perceiving the mischief and bitterness likely to be engendered by such a meeting as was proposed, resolved to put a stop to it. A deputa- tion accordingly waited on the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Corrie of Jesus, and requested him to forbid the meeting. Brad- shaw, along with his friends Hort and Westcott, was among those most active in organizing this opposition, which was successful, and the meeting was stopped.

Aaaand...this has nothing whatsoever to do with the King James Bible, seeing as it occurs more than two hundred years after its publication. I didn't say "the Vatican wasn't in a battle for power in England," I said that the religious authority had changed when Henry VIII broke from the Vatican and declared himself head of the church. Which is true. And that the question of authority had nothing to do with the King James Version or any previous version of the Bible. Which is also true. I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church trying to win converts in 1850, which, again, has nothing whatsoever to do with what we're discussing.

The points are as follows: First, the Authorized Version was not the first English Bible, nor the first to become widely available. Therefore it's nonsense to claim that post-1611 biblical translators are creating a Babel by introducing other translations to the language, since this is also what the King James translators did. Second, it is by no means impermissible for speakers of a language to translate a foreign-language work multiple times; indeed, it is encouraged, and no version can supersede and cancel out all future versions, no matter how good it is.

[Boo]

As soon a one starts to refer to eveythng except the Received Text as "corrupt," ends any chance of a rational discussion. To dismiss the efforts of Godly men with language skills who attempt to repair the damage done to the texts over the years done by time, deterioration, and the errors and additions of scribes as being corruption is to say that God does not work through anyone except King James and his scholars. That can be a sinful accusation. There are those who appear to be doing Satan's work when it comes to producing newer translations based on our own perceptions, but to accuse EVERYONE of it is a grevious error.

For you who really THINK you have no trouble understanding the King James wording, you may be surprised at what you don't understand but only think you do. I have personally spoken to several at my own church who THOUGHT they understood passages until I referred them to a proper dictionary to see how the meanings of certain words have changed over time.

[rejoice44]

[QUOTE]

Aaaand...this has nothing whatsoever to do with the King James Bible, seeing as it occurs more than two hundred years after its publication.

It has everything to do with taking authority away from the Vatican. When Tyndale's Bible came out it did not have the Catholic liturgy in it. The Catholic English Kings continually promoted bibles that had the liturgy in them. It was a continual battle that never ceased. Two hundred and forty years after the King James Bible was published we see the Pope working in Cambridge for the minds of the student body. It is here that we find John Fenton Hort supporting the Vatican, and where he got his ideas to get rid of that vile Protestant Bible, and replace it with new material. Hort's Bible had the apocrypha in it.

The points are as follows: First, the Authorized Version was not the first English Bible, nor the first to become widely available. Therefore it's nonsense to claim that post-1611 biblical translators are creating a Babel by introducing other translations to the language, since this is also what the King James translators did.

No the King James was not the first English Version, but it was the only one to survive for four hundred years as the bible of choice. You compare those early versions and you will find that they all read the same, the sentence structure, and most all the words, and you will not find that is the case today. Every time they produce a new version it has to read different than all the other versions in order to get a copyright. The King James Bible translators did not have to search for words that were close to the same meaning that they could insert, and they did not have to change the sentence structure. The King James Bible translators translated from material that was accepted as the Word of God from generation to generation. There was a chain of evidence for it being the Word of God. No so for Hort's work. It came from the dark recesses of the Vatican, and from a trash basket. The one from the trash basket had absolutely no chain of evidence and the greatest forger of the nineteenth Century claimed he wrote it, and produced proof of such. Hort's personal friend who helped Hort put down the anti-Vatican uprising at Cambridge was the one who defended the authenticity of the trash basket manuscript.

Second, it is by no means impermissible for speakers of a language to translate a foreign-language work multiple times; indeed, it is encouraged, and no version can supersede and cancel out all future versions, no matter how good it is.

Is it permissible to forge the work and restructure it and change the words? Then you have to consider that God said he would keep his word and we were not to change it.

[Luke34]

It has everything to do with taking authority away from the Vatican. When Tyndale's Bible came out it did not have the Catholic liturgy in it. The Catholic English Kings continually promoted bibles that had the liturgy in them.

What on earth are you talking about? Do you have any idea whatsoever what Catholic liturgy even is? Bibles don't "have Catholic liturgy in them"; that's complete nonsense. The Catholic liturgy, or Mass, is drawn from a compendium of sources including, sure, the Bible ("Gloria in Excelsis Deo et in terra pax..." etc., you know the drill) to traditional prayers (the Apostles' Creed, revised in the Nicene creed), and newly-created prayers (the Confeitor). I think instead of "liturgy" you probably meant "dogma" or "teachings" but even if you did, your statement is vague enough as to make no sense.

Hort's Bible had the apocrypha in it.

Hey, you know what other English Bible included the Apocrypha? That's right, the King James Version!

Did you not know that?

Look it up. Your copy of the KJV probably doesn't have it, because most modern editions cut it out (I'm not sure why - people can't just ignore it?), but my New Cambridge Paragraph Bible has it, as do some others. Editions of the King James Bible without the Apocrypha are incomplete editions.

No the King James was not the first English Version, but it was the only one to survive for four hundred years as the bible of choice. You compare those early versions and you will find that they all read the same, the sentence structure, and most all the words, and you will not find that is the case today. Every time they produce a new version it has to read different than all the other versions in order to get a copyright. The King James Bible translators did not have to search for words that were close to the same meaning that they could insert, and they did not have to change the sentence structure. The King James Bible translators translated from material that was accepted as the Word of God from generation to generation. There was a chain of evidence for it being the Word of God. No so for Hort's work. It came from the dark recesses of the Vatican, and from a trash basket. The one from the trash basket had absolutely no chain of evidence and the greatest forger of the nineteenth Century claimed he wrote it, and produced proof of such. Hort's personal friend who helped Hort put down the anti-Vatican uprising at Cambridge was the one who defended the authenticity of the trash basket manuscript.

Look, I barely know who Hort is and I really don't care, and I'm not sure why you're harping on him, because he has nothing whatever to do with the present subject. Which is, I remind you again: "Is it acceptable to have other English translations of the Bible besides the King James Version?" Saying "Yeah well one time there was this guy Hort and he made a Bible and it was so bad, you guys" is utterly irrelevant.

And unless you can speak to the sentence structure and syntax of ancient Hebrew, I'm afraid you don't have much of a leg to stand on in re: "sentence structure" and the like. Because your argument essentially boils down to "it was like that for a long time so you know we might as well keep it." Which is NOT an argument at all. "Chain of evidence" makes little sense and has not been demonstrated. Your claim that modern Bible translators are mercenaries out for a quick buck is ridiculous (do you really think Hebrew and Greek scholars are rolling in the cash?) and unsupported by any sort of evidence. It's a fantasy. But again, your argument - "But a lot of people liked it for a long time!" - is a non-starter and makes absolutely no sense. So...sure, the King James version was and still is the most popular version in English. And...so? Is biblical accuracy a popularity contest now?

Again, if you can't speak Hebrew and Greek, you have no authority to be claiming one translation is better than another just because it was "accepted" for hundreds of years.

Is it permissible to forge the work and restructure it and change the words? Then you have to consider that God said he would keep his word and we were not to change it.

Well, we already translated it. Which is changing it to an immeasurable degree, so I'm guessing you're actually pretty lenient on that last rule. And again, you've nowhere shown that the KJV is not only the most accurate version ever but is more accurate than any possible future version, which is what is required for your argument to work. You've instead, I say again, taken the "But it's so popular! It must be good!" route, which is intellectually lazy and close-minded in the extreme.

Seriously, though, you didn't know about the Apocrypha?