A Requested Repost from November on Translations
All parts of this were written in November - even the update. I put it in to show what I stated earlier for those interested in my personal comments on the matter of the KJV.
Some Information on Bible Translations
There is some argument about which Bible translation is the most accurate and while I do like the KJV and have no problem with it I am disturbed that some have decided that all other translations are totally inaccurate based on a few online sources they have researched. This is an attempt to clarify some things for those who are interested in knowing the difference.
A Bit of Background on Original Sources
There are two original Hebrew (Masoretic text & another that was the basis of the Septuagint) and Greek (UBS & Nestle-Alland) translation sources. When the King James was translated there was only one with which they worked and it was a text that predates the UBS and Nestle-Alland. Since that time the UBS & Nestle Alland manuscripts have been used and deemed a more accurate source than the KJV source. All modern translations are based on this - the Masoretic text for Hebrew and both the UBS and N-A. The NKJV has been done based on the most current KJV translation with footnotes to indicate changes made. Both the UBS and the Nestle-Alland have text versions that have been revised as research has shown new things. The KJV has been revised many times since it's original translation in 1611 to account for the developments in the Greek New Testament.
With all we have learned and discovered about geology, archaeology, hundreds of years of research and study of culture and history along with the discovery of the UBS & Nestle-Alland text, which are original manuscript translations of God's Word and are not disputed among translators, we can fully trust those new translations that have come along in more recent years. To dismiss them is irresponsible.
The paraphrases are still just that - paraphrases. But why were they written? The history of why the Living Bible was written was simply a father who was telling stories to his children in understandable English. He wrote them down and the text found merit as a paraphrase at some point. The other translation (yes, it is a translation) published by the American Bible Society called Good News for Modern Man was written in easy to read language in order to compete with the Living Bible. The NIV was translated by the International Bible Society and the Message was written by Eugene Peterson as a translation for his Sunday School class. The NIV was written by a commitee and the Message was written by one individual. The CEV (Contemporary English Version) was written by the American Bible Society in order to compete with the NIV. These are competing companies with the goal of reaching the world for Christ. Not a bad goal if you ask me.
If you were to be able to translate a variety of languages you would see that Bibles sent to the countries with those languages would have made cultural changes for clarity. They do not understand many of the same phrases and cultural things as Americans and clarity and cultural relevance has been deemed important when reading and learning about Christ to these companies that publish for international use. An example would be the phrase "hearts and minds" in the English language. This is a phrase to talk about the place where we feel emotion and we think. In another culture their source of feeling may be the intestines and the place of thinking may be referred to as the heart. So their translation would read "innards and heart". Pretty gross but it gets the point across in a way they understand.
The actual text used by the KJV does have some phrases present that are not present in later translations (UBS & N-A). The KJV is heavily dependent upon the translation by Tyndale. Tyndale did his translation from the Greek text of Erasmus (first to publish). Since then many more manuscripts have been developed. It has been deemed by later scholars that Erasmus text was written based on the best manuscripts he could find at the time and he made the most accurate version of the NT of his time. Archaeology developed as a science 300 years after Erasmus writings. We now know more about Greek language and culture than he did at his time. We also have thousands more manuscripts than he did and earlier manuscripts, as well. Many elements in the Erasmus version do not appear in earlier manuscripts, therefore are not included in the most recent UBS and N-A texts. This accounts for the difference between the KJV and all the modern translations. Nothing was removed from the KJV but instead translated from earlier and better manuscripts. Usually when something is longer it is considered later in textual critic circles. Textual critics deem the shorter text to be an earlier manuscript.
When comparing translations the one that is actually the most textually accurate (word for word equivalence) is the New American Standard and now the new Holman Christian Standard Bible falls into this accurate catagory along with the KJV. If you were to look at the spectrum of translations there would be:
* The most accurate to the original text - The NAS (based on UBS3), KJV (previous text - see above), HCSB (based on UBS4), and English Standard Version (ESV) (UBS4) published in 2001 - formal equivalence is the term used for accuracy. These have the highest reading level at or around a 12th grade level.
* The middle combination of a translation/paraphrase style - done for modern english and cultural changes over time. - This would be the NIV (UBS3) - dynamic equivalence is the term for their goal in writing the NIV.
* The totally paraphrased texts - All things that say they are paraphrases and some translations such the New Living Translation, the Living Bible, The Message and so forth. - a meaning for meaning equivalence is what these strive for - they ask what the passage means in Greek and then translate the meaning into English. These have a basically lower reading level and many children's texts are written at this level.
* There is a fourth catagory that I do not even consider the Bible at all and that would include gender neutral (Today's NIV - not to be confused with the real NIV) and the homosexual bible. Once God's Truth has been altered to mean something totally different I refuse to read any longer. Other bibles that fall into this catagory are the JW (The New World Translation - proven in court to have been changed by people who do not know any Greek or Hebrew and changed to be whatever they deemed their theology to be) text and the extension of the Mormon bible called the Book of Mormon (they have a second book they have added as scripture but there "Bible" is not altered - Dan has read it while studying cults and false religions and it has not been tampered with just added to with the Book of Mormon - too bad they prefer their book to God's text)
Now, while I prefer a true translation (NAS or HCSB are my preferences) for my study time, I feel that the NIV and a few of the others have some merit for those with difficulty reading the harder texts. I have personally read the KJV, NKJV, NAS, NIV, NLT, and the New Testament of the HCSB (- because the OT is pending in 2004) cover to cover . I have cross referenced and studied from all of these. They have all spoken God's truth in my life and brought conviction, change and a deeper walk with Christ. I have said it before and will continue to say that God can use any or all of these texts to bring someone to Him because He is God. Your preference is your preference but it needs to be an educated preference.
Now, for those who think I am being harsh - maybe I do sound that way a bit but I really have no tolerance for those who refuse to understand the whole story. Closed mindedness is something I do not allow in my home in matters of God and Scripture. God is not confined to a box and neither is His Word. He can and will save with whatever He chooses and we as humans have no right to shut Him into one way of doing things. Again, He is God and we are not!
Questions and comments always welcomed.
Update: For those who prefer the KJV. I want you to know that I do not feel negatively about the KJV. It is quite poetic and beautiful in it's language and much of my Scripture memory exercises are done in this translation because of the flow. I am only writing this because some feel it is the only valid translation and I believe they are mistaken because they do not know differently or have not really tried to know differently. Hopefully no offense is taken in the reading of this post. I hope all that I write teaches and stretches others in their thinking. That is my ultimate goal in writing things like this. Again, I am always glad to clarify where need be. Thanks!
Chatboard (0)