Matthew 6:9:
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
The modern church should look forward to the day when the preceding words are never spoken. Not because Christians should discard Scripture–we should hold it dear–but because it’s time to move beyond the King James Version.
There are many reasons why the KJV is still used by English-speaking Christians today. Some people use it out of tradition. Others believe it is more faithful to the original text than other translations. Still others believe the King James Version is specifically inspired by God, and is as perfect as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
I do not buy the line that the inerrant word of God is found only in the originals– which nobody has. I know that God has the power to preserve His word and that he wouldn’t leave us out in the dark with an “imperfect” translation. In the authorized King James Version God assembled, and moved with His Spirit, a team of some of the world’s best scholars to translate His word into the world’s most popular language, English.
I’m not going to get sidetracked into a discussion of whether or not God has specially guided the translation of the KJV. It’s an irrelevant point. Even if the KJV is a perfect translation, we shouldn’t read it because you and I don’t speak the language of the KJV. I concede that the KJV is a great translation into 17th century English. It’s a dismal, sorry excuse for a translation into 21st century English. If you speak 21st century English (and you do) why would you read a foreign language translation?
If you don’t think 17th century English is a foreign language, just take a look at the vocabulary. A lot of the words are different. The English used in the KJV differs from modern English in at least five major ways.
1. Use of “thee” and “thou” pronouns (and “ye”, “thine”, etc.)
2. Use of “-est” and “-eth” endings on verbs
3. Use of archaic words that have lost meaning
4. Use of archaic words that have changed meaning
5. Use of archaic idioms and Phrases
You might be tempted to think that even if the KJV language is archaic, it’s worth it to learn the archaisms in order to have access to a superior translation. That sort of thinking is rejected by the KJV translators themselves, who saw great value in having a translation in the vulgar (common) language.
“Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, “Read this, I pray thee,” he was fain to make this answer, “I cannot, for it is sealed.” [Isa 29:11]”
If you grew up in the church, you might be familiar enough with the KJV that it doesn’t seem archaic and confusing to you. But consider how it would appear to someone who hasn’t grown up in the church. It is completely inaccessible. It is about as understandable to them as the Gullah translation is to you.
We Fada wa dey een heaben,
leh ebrybody hona ya name.
We pray dat soon ya gwine
rule oba de wol.
Wasoneba ting ya wahn,
leh um be so een dis wol
same like dey een heaben.
Gii we de food wa we need
dis day yah an ebry day.
Fagib we fa we sin,
same like we da fagib dem people
wa do bad ta we.
Leh we dohn hab haad test
wen Satan try we.
Keep we fom ebil.
It’s time to put the KJV to rest. Today’s English-speaking Christians should use a Bible in their own language.
Amen, great article. I’ve been thinking that more and more recently as some writers on here quote extensively from the KJV. I don’t know what the thrill is, but I do know that the KJV is not used much anymore in most churches. The other day, the question was asked if anyone in a 50-man Bible study at my church was using the KJV… not one person. Most of the men use the ESV (English Standard Version) or the NIV. The ESV is the most accurate to the original text, while the NIV takes some liberties in trying to be more “relevant.”
I haven’t noticed people on Zeal for Truth using it too much. I wrote the article because I’ve been reading some books where the authors chose to quote from the KJV, much to the detriment of the books.
Because my parents are Bible translators, I probably have a harder time understanding why anyone would deliberately choose to use a translation that is obtuse and hard to understand. It seems bizarre. Missionaries spend decades translating the Bible into foreign languages so that people in remote parts of the world can read God’s word in their own language. Yet here in America, I see people deliberately avoiding the use of modern English-language translations.
Good topic, Kenneth. This is an important topic to me since I’ve devoted my life to making scripture available to people in their mother tongue. I did grow up in the church and I’m about 100 years old, but I still can hardly understand the KJV. My mom doesn’t speak KJV-english, so I’m glad someone translated the word of God into a language I can understand.
If the topic of English Bible versions is one you are interested in, here is a very active blog you might want to check out:
http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/
Here is a link to a chart on the International Bible society website that lines up English versions according to how literal they are (although it omits my personal favorite, the TEV):
http://www.ibs.org/bibles/translations/
As for “paraphrases,” I recently read the preface to The Message. I know lots of Christians really dislike The Message, but the preface was rather eye-opening when Peterson explained that his congregation just plain could not understand when when English bibles were read, and his work of a pastor for all those years had been basically to “translate” the scriptures into words that his congregation could actually understand.
I wish folks like the Gideons (a great organization) would pass out Bibles in a newer version, but as far as I know, their English bibles are KJV only.
BTW, if you read the Gullah translation out loud, you might be able understand a little of it!
I was mostly referring to the “Biblical Healing” series.
Great links, Thainamu. It’s too bad they left out the TEV in that one chart. As for the Gideons, I also wish they would pass out newer translations. I have a NKJV Gideons New Testament in my back pocket, so at least they’re not exclusively KJV. But the NKJV isn’t that much easier to read. From what I’ve read online, the Gideons have distributed other versions in the past, including the NIV.
You will notice on the linked chart, only the NASB comes closer to a word for word translation. Even the NKJV makes compromises toward idea for idea. While we can debate all day whether word studies are important to understanding Scripture, this presents strong evidence that there IS a reason to use the KVJ that surpasses mere tradition or a belief in “special revelation” to the translators. I also tend to prefer it (or the NKJV) for memorization for the same reason that I want my memorization of Shakespeare to be in antiquated language. When it comes down to it though, anyone who is going to argue word choice HAS to go back to the original languages, and not to an older translation. Using NASB or an intralinear for word study makes more sense than using a KJV most of the time. KJV definitely has its benefits, but those benefits do not include ministry to the unbeliever or those without an already solid understanding of Scripture. It is a study tool rather than something for casual reading.
I will admit I use the King James a lot. I prefer it personally. I read other translations, but I just have an affection for the King James. Its not a religious allegiance, just a personal preference. When I minister publicly I never use it. I generally use only the NKJV or the American Standard Version. If I thought the passages I have used my articles were difficult to understand, I would have used another translation. In fact, I have done that on occasion.
I’m not qualified to say which is the best translation. I am skeptical, however, about the idea that certain modern translations use more reliable manuscripts. My limited understanding is that the manuscripts deemed to be older are supposedly more reliable. I just have a hard time with that, since some of these modern translations omit certain passages. But its all gravy. I read from all the translations except the paraphrases, which aren’t actual translations anyway.
Hey, Kenneth. Maybe you or someone would like to write an article dealing with the manuscripts…or not.
Yeah, I just have one more thing to say about the King James. If it was good enough for Paul, its good enough for me!
I use the ESV or KJV. I use the ESV because from everything I’ve read it’s the best all around translation out there at the moment. It also has gained a lot of popularity in more conservative Reformed circles, and with teachers I respect. It’s what I will continue to use both for personal study and public preaching.
I use the KJV for personal study because I like the translation. It has familiarity and a poetic structure, which makes memorization easier (not that the is my primary goal at the moment). I also don’t think that tradition is a bad reason to use it. Yes, understanding of what is written should come first, but I think traditions in the church can be a good thing.
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
Not want what? Not want the shepherd? Not want the Lord?
Maybe if I memorize it, then it will make more sense.
Or MAYBE IF I SAY IT LOUDER, it will make more sense.
I’m not just making this example up. For many years when I was young, I did not understand what that verse meant. Yet what it means is not all that complicated. So why did I have to read it without understand it for so many years? Isn’t it better to put the message in words that are commonly understood? After all, it is an important message! A message for everyone–even children, even non-native speakers, even pagans–not just for those of us with degrees in biblical languages.
A biblical language degree wouldn’t help you, you’d need an English degree
“I use the KJV for personal study because I like the translation. It has familiarity and a poetic structure, which makes memorization easier (not that the is my primary goal at the moment).”
My sentiments exactly. A pastor friend of mine once said that the King James Version was written in a time when everyone was a wordsmith. There is just something about the way the language is used that communicates to me. Its sort of like reading another language because of the different way the words are used (and I don’t mean the archaic stuff). I understand it almost as clearly as I do any other translation. And the stuff I don’t understand, I compare with other translations to get a clearer picture, or I read my Baptist KJV Study Bible with footnotes and whatnot. I will say that the Old Testament part of the KJV is a lot more difficult passages than the New Testament.
Chris A. said, “Its sort of like reading another language because of the different way the words are used ….”
That is exactly Kenneth’s point–it is a different language! It is not the language we speak. Yes, the language we now speak is a direct descendant of KJV English, but it is not the same.
“I would rather have people read any translation of the Bible — no matter how weak — than to read no translation of the Bible. If there could be only one translation in English, I would rather it be my least favorite than that there be none. God uses every version to bless people and save people.
But the issue before the church in the English-speaking world today is not “no translation vs. a weak translation.” It is between many precious English Bibles. A Bible does not cease to be precious and powerful because its translators overuse paraphrase and put way too much of their own interpretation into the Bible. That’s the way God’s Word is! It breaks free from poor translations and poor preaching — for which I am very thankful. But even though the weakest translation is precious, and is used by God to save and strengthen sinful people, better translations would be a great blessing to the church and an honor to Christ.”
- John Piper
http://forums.zealfortruth.org/viewtopic.php?p=66443#66443
My criticism of you position is that it assumes the meaning of all passages of Scripture should just be obvious on a casual “lazy” reading. This isn’t true, and CAN’T be true because it is absolutely impossible to fully translate one language to another. You should know this having worked in Bible translation.
Many times, it is entirely impossible to entirely translate a meaning from the original languages to the target language without ending up with awkward word structures and abnormally precise terms. There is also the problem that when using a “modern” phraseology the meaning of the terms and currency of the usage shifts rapidly. A translation of the Bible into 80’s slang would be dated and confusing to readers even a decade later. Because language is a moving target, maintaining a “current” translation is impossible.
Worse, by translating “idea for idea” as opposed to “word for word”, you make it far harder to research the original meaning. With translations like the NASB and KJV, you can go look up the original word translated “justification”. This would be far harder in a modern translation that attempted to define justification in a natural way. Few modern translations will use a “modern” term for justification, even though almost no other modern English literature uses it. We use MANY “special” terms like this. There is a value to doing so though, in that it encourages additional research into the meaning and usage of these terms. The use of “archaic” language allows a level of precision not possible when attempting to match infrequently used terms to modern day expressions of the same idea (especially since these expressions change so rapidly).
In a sense, what I’m trying to say is that two “simple” a translation leaves the reader overly convinced they understand the original meaning, without doing the necessary research to confirm the accuracy of the translation (due to improper word choice or shifting meaning of words). The terms in the KJV have been the same for centuries, with detailed research into their meanings. We have Strong’s numbers which make it simple to determine the original word in Greek or Hebrew, and extensive commentaries that explain the intended meaning of words chosen.
Because you were too petty to ask someone? Is it your expectation as a translator that you will be able to translate the Bible so well that every native reader of the translation will be able to fully understand every sentence without any need for clarification? Might it be possible that some readers would need to ask assistance from other native readers in understanding a sentence, or that study might actually need to be done into the original languages in some points? Do you believe that this was possible even for native speakers of the original letters sent by the apostles? Sometimes one just has to humble themselves enough to ask for help.
Note that the “poetry” of the language is part of why “Shakespearian English” is admired today. It might not be clearly understandable, but it does have a pleasant sound to it to many modern speakers. Is it really so strange that those of us who HAVE a very complete understanding of the modern KJV would enjoy hearing it read aloud? Must all readers prefer a third grade reading level (like the excellent NCV) over an acoustically pleasing expression that requires experience to understand? I always find it strange that people clamoring for “more variety” in translations are often so completely hostile to those who want to include the KJV as part of that variety. Must we say, as the article does, that “the KJV is bad”? Or can we instead agree that it is appropriate in specific contexts, and that in others another translation is preferable?
Atanamis wrote, “I always find it strange that people clamoring for “more variety” in translations are often so completely hostile to those who want to include the KJV as part of that variety.”
If this viewpoint exists at all, it is extremely rare.
I admit I do like the poetic, archaic quality of the KJV. There’s some beauty in it. Not enough to make me want to keep it around, though.
Chris Austere said: “Hey, Kenneth. Maybe you or someone would like to write an article dealing with the manuscripts…or not.”
I considered mentioning manuscripts in my article. I decided against it because I’m not qualified to offer an informed opinion. My layman’s understanding is that the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, and that the only people who defend the primacy of the Textus Receptus today are the KJV-only people.
“That is exactly Kenneth’s point–it is a different language! It is not the language we speak. Yes, the language we now speak is a direct descendant of KJV English, but it is not the same.”
I agree, its not the same. I still like it. Its sort of an intellectual exercise to think about the English language from a different perspective by route of YE OLDE SCHOOL. But let me ask you a question, and I would like an honest answer: Do you think my use of the KJV in my articles has prevented you from understanding the scriptures presented? And anyone else can feel free to chime in on this. The reason I ask is because if this is the case I would consider using a different translation in future articles.
And Thainamu, how about an update on that missionary who was ill. Do you know whether his condition has improved? Please let me know.
I haven’t noticed the KJV to be a problem in any of your articles. I grew up with enough exposure to KJV language that I can follow it pretty well. Even so, whenever I see a verse in the King James I almost invariably look it up in some other translations to make sure I understand it. Actually I do that a lot anyway, even if it’s not in the King James. I do this because sometimes people (not anyone on Zeal for Truth, at least not yet) misquote verses. It pays to be vigilant.
What prompted me to write this article was Mark Cahill’s book One Thing You Can’t Do In Heaven. It’s a good book written in an easy-to-read colloquial style, but deeply flawed by his choice to use the KJV.
Chris A said, “But let me ask you a question, and I would like an honest answer: Do you think my use of the KJV in my articles has prevented you from understanding the scriptures presented? And anyone else can feel free to chime in on this. The reason I ask is because if this is the case I would consider using a different translation in future articles.”
I wouldn’t say that your use of the KJV has prevented me from understanding, exactly. After all, I’m old, I grew up on the KJV, and I’m versed in translation theory. How I did react is with annoyance, I guess, or something like that. Don’t take this personally, because I don’t mean it as a personal attack, but I can’t even imagine why anyone would use the KJV in this context. We would expect that readers of ZFT could come from anywhere on the internet–so why use an archaic dialect of English that they would not likely be able to understand?
Or to take that thinking a step further, sometimes subcultures use a given variety or dialect to intentionally exclude non-members of the subculture. For instance, there are cultures where there exists a dialect only spoken by women, to keep the men out of certain conversations. Or a dialect spoken only by witch doctors, for the same reason, to protect the witch doctor priesthood.
Sometimes it feels like certain Christian subcultures are trying to preserve their own little space to the exclusion of others when they insist that only KJV (or some other) translation be used. I’m not accusing you of that, but I encourage you to make your writing as understandable to as wide a spectrum of readers as possible, especially here in an open forum on the internet.
Chris said, “And Thainamu, how about an update on that missionary who was ill. Do you know whether his condition has improved? Please let me know.”
His memorial service will be Friday at 7pm. I don’t expect this to be a sad service, however, as many will be there who praise God for his decades of wonderful service to God and his family. We continue to pray for strength for his frail wife.
“Sometimes it feels like certain Christian subcultures are trying to preserve their own little space to the exclusion of others when they insist that only KJV (or some other) translation be used. I’m not accusing you of that, but I encourage you to make your writing as understandable to as wide a spectrum of readers as possible, especially here in an open forum on the internet.”
Point well taken. I might go to the NKJV. That is a good middle ground. My next article will be KJV because its just about finished, but going forward I think I might change it. After all, I’m not writing for myself even though I do sort of enjoy it.
“His memorial service will be Friday at 7pm. I don’t expect this to be a sad service, however, as many will be there who praise God for his decades of wonderful service to God and his family. We continue to pray for strength for his frail wife.”
And I’ll be praying with you.
Atanamis said, “Worse, by translating “idea for idea” as opposed to “word for word”, you make it far harder to research the original meaning. With translations like the NASB and KJV, you can go look up the original word translated “justification”.”
If you really don’t trust which ever English translation you happen to be reading, then why use it? You should instead study the biblical languages themselves. Or of you’re disinclined to do that, then at least use an interlinear along with the books you quote.
Atanamis also said, “Because you were too petty to ask someone? Is it your expectation as a translator that you will be able to translate the Bible so well that every native reader of the translation will be able to fully understand every sentence without any need for clarification? Might it be possible that some readers would need to ask assistance from other native readers in understanding a sentence, or that study might actually need to be done into the original languages in some points?”
No, I wasn’t too petty to ask, I was too young to know that the book wasn’t written in my language. Yes, yes, there are PLENTY of places in scripture that are hard to understand; why make it worse by obscuring the easy things by using archaic language as is the case in my example?
Thainamu wrote, “sometimes subcultures use a given variety or dialect to intentionally exclude non-members of the subculture.”
1
I mention that “1″ is gurr8’s code word for “Thainamu is my favorite auntie” in case you aren’t part of his inner circle.
Here you go:
http://www.dyeager.org/articles/bibletranslations.php
It covers textual issues and compares the modern translations vs. KJV/NKJV and also compares literal vs paraphrase issues. Shows side-by-side renderings of various translations.
There are two issues in Bible Translation:
1. Which text you’re translating from.
2. How literal/paraphrased you translate it.
The KJV vs. NASB/NIV/NLT, et al is really an issue of Textus Receptus verses Westcott/Hort’s Alexandrian texts. Westcott/Hort edited the Greek text which had been used for centuries to come up with a new “scholarly” text. If memory serves, today it’s usually called Nestle/Ashland and forms the basis for most of the modern translations, save KJV/NKJV.
The Alexandrian texts are frequently called “the oldest and best” in Bible footnotes, but that’s quite in doubt. If you actually compare Westcott/Hort and Textus Receptus, you’ll find they differ in many places, some with bizarre implications. Jesus didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners (Mark 2:17). Call to what? Dinner? Football? … Westcott/Hort deleted “to repentance” in their text.
So the first issue you’ve got to deal with is which Greek text you use — the recent Alexandrian Westcott/Hort or the received Textus Receptus. After that, how literal do you translate.
The Bible translation discussion seems to bring out the most divisive behavior — some have said if you don’t use the KJV, you’re not saved - that’s absurd. On the other side, people who think the Bible is a jar of Prego “it’s all in there”, and edits/changes don’t matter much are equally wrong.
It’s important to understand ALL translations have problems — it’s simply impossible to translate Greek into English without issues. The question is, do you know how your translation was done, and why they chose what they did? Do you know the background of the people doing the translation?
Thanks, Dyeager.
This quote makes my point far better than I could (thanks gurr8 for posting it in the forum):
Good English With Minimal Translation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV
Thainamu wrote:
So you didn’t feel confused by it, you thought you knew what it meant and were wrong? Honestly, as a small child I read in the NCV, and am greatful I did. As I specified, I would never impose the KJV on anyone. That said, I think that it is ill advised to ignore word for word accuracy for solely idea for idea translating. This is why it is often advisable to use two translations, one for casual reading and another for more focussed study.
I’m not quite sure why people object to “idea for idea” translation. Don’t you expect that is what the gospel writers themselves did when they “quoted” Jesus’ words? After all, the gospels were written in Koine Greek, but Jesus spoke–and preached to the crowds–in Aramaic. (It is likely he spoke Greek too, and some Hebrew and maybe a even a little Latin, but his native language was Aramaic.)
Thainamu, the NIV uses “atonement/atoned” where the ESV uses “propitiation/propitiated.” It’s a matter of precision; atonement/atoned is way too broad of a term for the precise meaning of propitiation.
Westcott/Hort deleted “to repentance” in their text.
Did they delete it from their text, or was it never in the texts they translated from?
Bryan
SDG
“Did they delete it from their text, or was it never in the texts they translated from?”
My understanding is that it was not in the manuscripts they used. There are quite a few such occurrences. John 5:4, for instance, is totally absent from the NIV. Here’s how the verse reads in the King James:
“For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
Westcott/Hort created a *Greek* text which forms the basis for many of the recent translations. It’s not a Greek->English issue, it’s the base Greek text manuscripts used — WH favored the Alexandrian text base over Textus Receptus for their compilation.
The article I wrote and referred to earlier goes into the detailed background on them and their Greek text, and has more examples.
“I’m not quite sure why people object to “idea for idea” translation.”
If we continue down that road, the argument is going to get confusing and frustrating.
Let’s take away those symantics and look at it another way: Basically you have two types of bibles.
You have the bibles where the translators sat down and said “let’s translate this into english as accurately and beautifully as possible while allowing the original text’s ambiguity to show through.”
And then you have the bibles where the translators sat down and said “let’s write a bible that explains itself as you read it based on the doctrine we believe the original authors intended.”
I don’t think that the translators in the second group are evil, but i do think they are misguided. If they want to create sermons, they should do so without impersonating a bible. the New Living Translation and (more obviously) The Message fall into this catagory. I’m not sure the NIV falls into this catagory…I think it’s just a sloppy translation.
Atanamis said, “This is why it is often advisable to use two translations, one for casual reading and another for more focussed study.”
If we are blessed enough to have that privilege, we ought to read all of them.
I apologize for perhaps being too personal here, but in view of the state of the world, sometimes I weary of people arguing about which English translation is the best.
Even putting aside the difficulty that word for word translation isn’t really possible because there’s often not equivalents, a truly literal translation is unreadable and no one actually does it. Look at a interlinear that that is ordered by the Greek and not English and you’ll see what I mean.
“thus for LOVES THE God THE SYSTEM AS-BESIDES THE SON THE ONLY-generated He-GIVES THAT EVERY THE one-BELIEVING INTO Him NO SHOULD-BE-beING-destroyED but MAY-Be-HAVING LIFE eonian.”
Now that’s a literal translation, which you probably recognize since it’s an extremely familiar verse.
“AND BESIDE-FALLING AGAIN TO-BE-UP-NEWizING INTO after-MIND UP-impallING to-selves THE SON OF-THE God AND BESIDE-SHOWizING.”
You’d have alot of difficulty saying which verse that is even after I’ve quoted it to you.
Notice how much interpretation even “literal” versions do:
(NASB) - “and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.”
(ESV) - “and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.”
Jew wrote
Thainamu wrote
Riiight, you’re weary of people badmouthing translations they don’t like. You’ve spent the entire discussion bashing one you don’t like (KJV), and then make the ignorant statement that all translations are equally valid. As a translator, you KNOW that’s not true. Words have meaning, and it we restrict our vocabulary to commonly used terms in modern slang, we reduce our ability to be precise with concision.
PREFACE TO THE NIV BIBLE
A “word for word” translation requires a lot more knowledge of original language to read and understand, because the sentence and word structure takes a lot from the original language. The benefit is that it provides far better access to a deeper understanding of original meaning. I can put together an “Atanamis’s paraphrase” that summarizes the meaning of a passage to the best of my knowledge, but anything I might not recognize will be lost from the paraphrase. I guess if you believe all translators are divinely guided, I guess this might not be a problem. I’d really recommend reading the John Piper article I linked above for information about word for word vs idea for idea and the losses involved.
Honestly, I’m a little surprised to have to describe this to a translator. I’d think you’d be intimately familiar with these kinds of compromises and the relative advantages of each. Does Wycliffe not have detailed material and training on this issue? I would have thought you’d know more about the issue than anyone else here.
gurr8 said:
That’s one of the reasons I’m not as happy with the NLT anymore. I do like the fact that they add phrases to explain what was implied to the original audience. I’m not an ancient Israelite so I’m not conversant with Israelite culture. It helps to have those cultural references spelled out explicitly in the text.
But too often the NLT goes further, and forces a particular interpretation of the text.
Atanamis said:
It can do that if the audience is well educated and has access to Bible study resources. Wycliffe missionaries are usually translating the Bible for people groups who have minimal education and literacy, and no Bible study materials at all. In some languages, the newly translated Scriptures will be the only thing written in their own language. So the Wycliffe translators are generally a lot more open to a free (that is, not word-for-word) translation.
You might be surprised at the liberties taken when translating the New Testament. Basic phrases like “bread of life” aren’t always translated literally. In a culture where rice is the staple food and bread is only for special occasions, a literal translation of “bread of life” would communicate the wrong message. And that’s OK because “bread of life” is a figure of speech. It should be translated into an analogous figure of speech.
Atanamis, it would be easier to take you seriously if you hadn’t in the past admitted that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing, often taking positions you don’t even believe and trying to come across as someone who knows everything about everything. I don’t really want to play that game.
I think that’s what he’s doing in the other thread, since I have no idea what he’s talking about when he accuses me of calling people names while he says I’m immature.
Jew wrote:
I have no complaint about using paraphrases to teach the basics of the faith. In fact, most people in US churches don’t learn the basics directly from a Bible, but from a teacher who “paraphrases” the passage for them to make it more readable. The sole criticism I have made in this thread is for those who believe that “the KJV is bad”, when in fact it and other “word for word” translations fulfill a useful if less common role as a “word for word” translation.
My sole argument throughout this thread is that “word for word” translations are useful for in depth study, something paraphrased make more difficult. I fully support someone making the decision that an easy to read translation is more important than a word for word accurate translation, but the idea that both are not useful and important in the long term is strange to me. Particularly hearing it from a translator, whom I would expect to best understand the differences (and to have clearly formed opinions on them). It is one thing to intentionally value readability over precise accuracy. It is another to not even admit the difference (”I’m not quite sure why people object to “idea for idea” translation.”). One might not AGREE with such objections, but to not even understand them? Unexpected.
Thaimamu, if ad hominem attacks are all you would like to make, then there is little value in your contributing anyway. Address the ideas or keep silent. You can call me names via PM if you’d like. Nobody here “objects” to “idea for idea”, but is is naive to pretend that the “idea” matching that any translator does is 100% accurate. Even if all Bible translators were renowned Bible scholars, this would still be a naive assumption. Why are you unwilling to admit that there is a place in the world for word to word translations? At some level, does doing so make you feel that your own contributions are reduced? This simply isn’t true! Proving ANY translation into a native language is a praiseworthy accomplishment. It doesn’t reduce that accomplishment in any way to admit that there is a place for both “idea for idea” as well as “word for word” translations. Why do you refuse to admit this? Do you honestly believe word for word accuracy is a completely worthless pursuit?
Darius, trolling across threads is even more immature than trolling within them. If you want to prove I’m wrong to call you immature, this isn’t the way to do so.
Atanamis said: The sole criticism I have made in this thread is for those who believe that “the KJV is bad”, when in fact it and other “word for word” translations fulfill a useful if less common role as a “word for word” translation.
The debate about a word-for-word translation is interesting but orthogonal to my reasons for disliking the KJV. The KJV isn’t in the language we speak today. Whatever else it may be, it’s still a foreign language.
Nevermind, you just don’t get it. I’m still confused why you are such a jerk this week, since usually you’re pretty decent in your tone.
And you’re not just being a jerk to me, you’re picking on everyone. What the heck is your problem, dude?
Since you won’t answer my question regarding why you say I’m calling names when I obviously was not, could you, PRAY TELL, explain where Thainamu was calling you ad hominem names? You’re digging yourself a hole that will soon be hard to overcome. So, I think I speak for at least Thainamu and myself in telling you to SHUT UP.
Atanamis, it would be easier to take you seriously if you hadn’t in the past admitted that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing, often taking positions you don’t even believe and trying to come across as someone who knows everything about everything. I don’t really want to play that game.
I like that game. It makes me feel smart. It also helps me develop my skills in “battle picking.”
Is this is the definition that Wycliff uses for “foreign languages”? If so, wouldn’t nearly every town need their very own translation? The words used are somewhat antiquated, but I have a FAR easier time reading the KJV than I would reading the original Greek and Hebrew. I don’t even own a KJV Bible at this point, but your harsh attacks on it are simply unwarranted. They are likely a response to the even more ridiculous “KJV only” position, but overreacting to an unreasonable position doesn’t make your position reasonable.
The cited article above by John Piper clearly stated that all translations of the Bible no matter how poor are infinitely valuable. Why is this idea so hard for you to admit? I never asked you to prefer the KJV, or even like it. I merely suggested that you admit it has a place. Why you and Thainamu have chosen to turn observation into a heated debate is bewildering to me.
Come on people now. Smile on your brother. Everybody get together. Try to love one another right now.
LOUD NOISES!
Atanamis said: Is this is the definition that Wycliff uses for “foreign languages”?
Linguists have different ways to determine the difference between dialects and languages. The first step is to get a word list and check for similarities. If the words don’t match up at least 70% then you’re probably dealing with separate languages. Even if the word lists match up pretty closely, it might still be two different languages. The real test is whether people who speak one language/dialect will accept, understand, and use a translation into the other language/dialect. Sometimes that means taking into account social and political values as well as just the words and grammar.
I merely suggested that you admit it has a place.
I was waiting for someone to say that. Yes, I admit it has a place. That place is the rubbish bin!
Ha ha.
No, seriously, I believe it has a place. It can be used privately by those Christians who have grown up with it and who are familiar enough with the archaic language to understand it. It should be used by scholars as a historical reference document. It should not be used in church, it shouldn’t be the default translation for Gideon Bibles in hotels, it shouldn’t be used as the translation of choice in Christian books. It is not an appropriate choice for any place where the lost might hear it. The lost need to hear the gospel in a language they understand, not in archaic words of 400 years ago.
It’s not a sin to use the KJV instead of a newer translation. I’d rather people use the KJV than nothing. It’s just not very smart to use it when we have better options.
To actually weigh in on the subject, I agree with the article.
We aren’t actually talking about a living language (no vernacular argument) or a classic/original language (Elizabethan English is hardly this). It’s a translation that was made in a now dead language. That’s the only point the article seems to make and I fail to see how it’s a problem. It’s akin to what it would be like if the KJV-era had a previous bible written in Old English.
“No, seriously, I believe it has a place. It can be used privately by those Christians who have grown up with it and who are familiar enough with the archaic language to understand it. It should be used by scholars as a historical reference document. It should not be used in church, it shouldn’t be the default translation for Gideon Bibles in hotels, it shouldn’t be used as the translation of choice in Christian books. It is not an appropriate choice for any place where the lost might hear it. The lost need to hear the gospel in a language they understand, not in archaic words of 400 years ago.”
I guess it seems strange for me to agree with this, since I have used the KJV almost exclusively in my articles. But I think you are basically right. If our objective is to communicate truth, then we should take the route that best communicates. I mean, let us first speak the same language so that we have a basis for agreement.
My grandpa was a an ardent King James-only man. But he just liked to be argumentative. That’s neither here nor there, except to say that tradition is hard to part from. And some people will fight you over stuff like this and they really don’t know why. They just think they are supposed to.
I think some people really don’t see the KJV language as archaic. They see it as pretty similar to what we speak today, and thus they don’t see a need to use another translation.
This guy would disagree with you all… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxcyqeRc-4
“I think some people really don’t see the KJV language as archaic. They see it as pretty similar to what we speak today, and thus they don’t see a need to use another translation.”
Yeah, I guess so. But it is archaic by simple definition. Its not really a matter of opinion. I can read it and understand most of it perfectly, particularly the New Testament. But the real question is: does everyone understand it? The answer, of course, is no. I’m going to take a verse of scripture out of context that has a valuable application here. I will quote from the King James, of course.
“Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.”
(1 Corinthians 14:11)
Evaluating standard English in Bible versions: Part 2
The goal of a translator should be to maintain this “essentially literal” interpretation of meaning, while translating into a high quality of the target language. My problem with things like “The Message” has always been that a great deal of meaning changes in it when compared to other translations. My own Greek/Hebrew is too weak (non-existent) to determine whether it is the Message or all other versions which are in error. It in interesting to me that this particular study ranks the ESV so low, since I have never found it difficult to read. Perhaps my own ability to determine “quality English” is flawed.
1 Corinthians 14:11 (English Standard Version)
1 Corinthians 14:11 (Contemporary English Version)
Hmm… I guess I’ll have to get myself one of each and do my own comparisons…
^^Atanamis, what is that study analyzing and what does it prove? I honestly cannot understand a word of it!
Darius wrote, “I think that’s what he’s doing in the other thread, since I have no idea what he’s talking about when he accuses me of calling people names while he says I’m immature.”
Excellent contribution to this thread. Keep up the good work!
Projecting again, are we? You usually contribute nothing, but open your cake hole when it’s unwarranted to spew utter stupidity. Nice work!
How about this gurr8? We’ll try something that is apparently new to you, so try to respond. Could you address where exactly Atanamis was right? Come on, fool, for ONCE back up one of your snide remarks with more than hot air.
Shiny happy people holding hands.
Now watch everyone… he will probably slither away back under his rock with no further comments to back up his vitriol, waiting for a more conducive moment to strike when everyone has forgotten his last stupid statement. After all, he never addressed his “Focus on the Family is a cult” slander after he got called on it by multiple people. I don’t particularly like stupid fights, but if an idiot is going to start one, I will call him out on it.
Grins at Chris A.
Recent English Bible Versions Compared
I think I’m going to go buy “The Contemporary Parallel New Testament” for study purposes, and a copy of the CEV and ESV to complement my copy of the NCV (currently my favorite “casual reading” translation). ESV seems to get a lot of respect for being “literal” while also being very readable (to me at least).
ESV Translation Philosophy:
http://www.gnpcb.org/page/esv.philosophy
Ouch, Catholic Bibles are both more literal and more readable than NIV?
http://www.sundayschoolresources.com/biblechoices.htm
(I like CEV for Matt 18:24, assuming it is accurate. Why anyone uses the word “talents” has always confused me. Using “dollars” is almost as bad, perhaps worse.)
And, for the opposition:
When literal is not accurate
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/literal.htm
Note that while I fully agree with the above, I STILL think that a readable “transliteration” is useful in pointing out the use of idioms throughout Scripture. Nowhere have I claimed that such “word for word” translations should be someone’s first exposure to Scripture. The more I research, the more getting a CEV/ESV parallel Bible seems to make sense. One focuses on clear English, while the other tries to make the original idioms and structures accessible. Both are useful in a study Bible.
Gurr, the study was attempting to analyze how “clear” the English used for each translation was. It rated the CEV as 94% “standard” English. I have no knowledge what standard was used for grading the passages, and cited it only for general interest. It proves nothing but that this “study” found the KJV to be hard to understand and the CEV to be easy to understand. I was surprised that it rated the ESV so low, but further study suggests this was due to sentence structure of the ESV, which attempts to emulate the original language more than “normal English”. As the links above demonstrate, this is a debatable decision for them to have made, but one I feel is good as one half of a parallel Bible.
Atanamis said: “I like CEV for Matt 18:24, assuming it is accurate. Why anyone uses the word “talents” has always confused me. Using “dollars” is almost as bad, perhaps worse.”
I also dislike the use of talents. If it was just an archaic word, that would be one thing. We can understand little-used terms like denarius, but a word like talent is different. Talent has a different meaning in modern English.
Dollars also bothers me, because it’s historically inaccurate. There were no dollars back then. It’s better than talents, because it has less potential to create confusion. But I don’t know why the other translations can’t just do as the CEV did and render it “fifty million silver coins.” That’s more accurate than dollars, less confusing than talents, and it still conveys the enormity of the debt.
OK, now maybe I will go try the CEV.
Darius wrote, “How about this gurr8? We’ll try something that is apparently new to you, so try to respond. Could you address where exactly Atanamis was right? Come on, fool, for ONCE back up one of your snide remarks with more than hot air.”
Once again you prove that you never stoop to name-calling. You always take the high ground!
If you want to receive adult responses, you’re going to have to present yourself as more than a troll.
P.S. You’re probably as ugly as you are stupid.
Darius wrote, “Now watch everyone…”
Please note that if you feel the need to try to create a mob, you may want to try to have people like you first. Please don’t be confused by the generosity and humility of bigger men like Atanamis.
When name-calling is appropriate, I use it, MORON. You sure ignored my comment, as usual. Is it impossible for you to do ANYTHING but call names and prove yourself a fool? Seriously, I am really beginning to wonder… this is like the 4th time that you have called me a name or made a snide remark and when called on it either disappeared or just kept up your vitriol without any evidence to back yourself up. It’s disappointing, but not unexpected.
“Create a mob”… ha, I’m not sure how you think that’s what I was doing. I was merely pointing out to everyone else what you always do, loser. Now go away unless you have something intelligent to say on this matter.
The sun’ll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There’ll be sun!
Just thinkin’ about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
‘Til there’s none!
When I’m stuck a day
That’s gray,
And lonely,
I just stick out my chin
And Grin,
And Say,
Oh!
The sun’ll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
‘Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You’re always
A day
A way!
Darius, seriously, if you have any respect whatsoever for my opinion, please just let it go. I’ve apologized, you’ve accepted the apology, let’s just let the flame war drop. Ok?
“Darius, seriously, if you have any respect whatsoever for my opinion, please just let it go. I’ve apologized, you’ve accepted the apology, let’s just let the flame war drop. Ok?”
Yeah, because…
“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged.”
(2 Timothy 2:24, NASB)
Atanamis, I wasn’t directing my comment at you. I do generally respect your opinion. But agreed, I should have listened to the wisdom of Proverbs 26:4 and let gurr8 continue his rant alone.
And obviously Matthew 5:22.
So what does that say about Jesus when he confronted the temple merchants? You have to show discretion… if someone is an utter fool, he should be called to account if the occasion requires it. Perhaps I should have just let gurr8 rant, it’s not like it’s his first time.
I guess the whole question is when is it good to listen to Proverbs 26:4 and when is it wise to respond like Proverbs 26:5 tells us. After all, this is the “Zeal for Truth” blog and it sometimes disheartens me when people don’t seem too zealous for truth to win out, but just want everyone to act “nice.” Stupid comments are stupid comments, and in a public forum such as this, on occasion they should be reprimanded as such.
Loving and kind isn’t just ignoring ignorance and hatred, sometimes it requires rebuking it as well. When gurr8 called Dr. Dobson (a man who has devoted his life to helping families raise Godly children) a cult leader, he should have been much more strongly rebuked than just by Jew and myself (according to Romans 14:16). It worries me that some Christians today are so worried about “tolerance” that they tolerate sinful actions and words. Hate the sin… let’s not forget that.
Rebuking is one thing. Name-calling and insults are different. The biblical duty to rebuke does not give license to mudslinging and spiteful insults. I’ve noticed a trend (not at Zeal for Truth, but elsewhere) of people who think that being kind and nice are at odds with speaking the truth. It’s like they think the truth can only be spoken by denigrating and ridiculing those who speak untruth. The implication is that showing respect to someone who is wrong is compromising the truth. That’s the behavior I don’t want to see at Zeal for Truth. So far we’ve done a great job of not sinking to that level.
Yeah, I wasn’t addressing showing respect (which I admit I find hard to do with someone like gurr8), but rebuking lies and insults. gurr8 has repeatedly resorted to injecting insults and snide remarks into a conversation (or argument in this case) that he’s not even a part of. Calling FotF a cult was the lowest thing he’s done, since that is calling something good evil, which is very anti-Biblical. I really don’t care if he calls me a name or insinuates about my own character (I AM foolish in my words too often), but lowering the civility of an discussion that had gotten past the misunderstandings was what ticked me off. He always comes to the table a day late and a dollar short, interjecting vileness that usually only enflames an otherwise smoothed out situation.
“When gurr8 called Dr. Dobson (a man who has devoted his life to helping families raise Godly children) a cult leader, he should have been much more strongly rebuked than just by Jew and myself (according to Romans 14:16). It worries me that some Christians today are so worried about “tolerance” that they tolerate sinful actions and words. Hate the sin… let’s not forget that.”
Well, here is where I have to interject something. There is a difference between rebuking someone and quarreling with them. A rebuke is either received or it isn’t. There is no such thing as a biblical ongoing tit for tat rebuke. That is called strife.
Also I have to object to using Romans 14:16 as a means of suggesting that others should feel obligated to rebuke someone else. In context that verse is dealing with not causing others to stumble while enjoying our liberty in Christ.
Chris, the principle of promoting truth and not allowing something or someone good to be called is Biblical, wouldn’t you agree?
Darius wrote, “Stupid comments are stupid comments, and in a public forum such as this, on occasion they should be reprimanded as such.”
It’s nice to hear this from you, but you’ve gone down this road before. You troll, I take it to your level, then you act righteous. I’d have some hope with comments like this, but next week you’ll be back to doing the same thing again.
You’re not the first guy to come on the site and take the attitude that you have. You know what? None of them lasted. We’ve certainly had some heated discussions on this site (and most of us have said things that were over the top), but it has always been with an open mind and a general respect for each other. When you present an attitude that shows respect for those you disagree with and an open mind for debate, I will show respect for you. Or at least leave you alone.
Oops, it should read “to be called evil”
“Chris, the principle of promoting truth and not allowing something or someone good to be called is Biblical, wouldn’t you agree?”
Not exactly. I do believe promoting truth is biblical. Maybe you could show me some more scripture to provide an adequate basis for agreement.
Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
I do agree with you that one should stick to rebuking and not get sucked into bickering. Of that I am guilty, I should have just rebuked him once and ignored him from that point on. I saw this happen with two other guys on another blog this week… one was being an idiot and abusive, and I told the other guy to just ignore him or he would also start looking foolish, and he didn’t take my advice and by the end their dialogue was hilariously juvenile.
“But… you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is… a slanderer… With such a man do not even eat.” 1 Corinthians 5:11
I guess this verse doesn’t completely speak to how exactly to handle a slanderer, besides avoiding his company. Check.