Why are so many fundies insistent that the KJV is best?

[Arete]

From the Greek point of view in the New Testament some of the translation is not the greatest. The one that especially comes to mind is the first word of John the Baptist, translated as "repent". The Greek work is "metanoia". Metanoia means to change, to transform. So the sentence in Greek is "Transform/change yourself, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" The english is "Be regretful and make it right". Sure making it right requires a change, but change and especially transformation is the emphasis in the Greek. We won't even get into whether the Baptist actually spoke in Greek or Aramaic. The whole Peter and the rock of the church gets lost as the pun it is in Greek. The Book of John and all the pagan philosophy and pagan concepts like the Logos? Forget about it.

The KJV is beautiful English, but it's a translation with all the problems that entails. Just like the Septuagint is a Greek translation of Hebrew and all the problems that entails. The anti intellectual bent of the KJV onlies is mind blowing considering regardless of the original or translation, it was always the MOST educated compiling, editing and translating the books that eventually made up scripture.

Edited to correct the Logos reference from Luke to John. I am duly mortified. :doh:

[JesusFightClub]

Because English is constantly changing, a lot of the verses our fundies trip over are the result of them sticking to the KJV but not making allowance for the fact that modern day English and the English of that time are different. "Avoid every appearance of evil" does NOT mean "don't do things other people could mistake for evil", it means "avoid evil whenever it appears". And don't get me started on "helpmeet".

At school, we used the NIV with KJV for backup weapon ;) I like the NIV a lot. But, Chiccy, totally agree with you that some Bible versions are a nightmare. "The Message" springs to mind. There's something about it which sets my teeth on edge.

Having said this I usually think it is great when Bibles are put into other dialects. The Jamaican Bible is fantastic and I like the (Scots) Glasgow Bible (written in Glaswegian sae Weegies can unnerstaun' :) ) Sample from Genesis...this is God creating the earth:

""Weel noo" God says tae himsel wan day, "I'll fix a wee bit dod o land - doon there.""

:)

[Arete]

JFC,

If you want to read the NT in hawaiian pidgin english, try "Da Jesus Book". Where the the KJV talks about the "kingdom of God", John and Jesus are "spreading aloha". It translates the entire New Testament, but I'm pretty sure someone like Steve Maxwell would self combust if he actually read a copy. Now there's a happy thought. :mrgreen:

[frumperlicious]

I may actually read the Bible if I can read the Scottish or Hawaiian one.

I had a home schooling friend insist her children would be smarter because her church and home only used the KJV. I had to resist the urge to say they would certainly be more well rested...that thing is a snooze!

[2xx1xy1JD]

2xx1xy1JD, as far as I know--and it really is mostly from hearsay--there are a lot of translation problems presented by the Bible, but the people who wrote KJV were very attentive to them. The KJV uses a translation principle of formal equivalence rather than dynamic equivalence, making it much more faithful than most versions. Of course you can't expect any translation (of anything) to retain every nuance of the original, but, from what I've heard, the KJV comes admirably close.

Other versions of the Bible are a mixed bag, and some are pretty abhorrently unfaithful.

I double-checked the KJV and Hebrew versions. There are definitely issues with translation, right from the first page.

Genesis 1 translates the word "adam" as a man. You don't get the connection in Genesis 2 between "adam" and the word for earth, which is "adamah". You don't get the fact that the word "adam" is different from the usual word for "man", which is "ish". You don't get the fact that "helpmeet" is literally translated as "help opposite".

Why should a Free Jingerite care, apart from general nerdiness? Well, the KJV says that G-d created MAN, and then created women to be his helpmeet. A more accurate translation would be that G-d created The Adam (first human created from the ground), male and female, and then took a side from The Adam so that the woman would be a helper opposing/complementing the man. In other words, man and woman were two halves of a whole First Being, who was created in the Divine image. It's more yin and yang, and less "we were created first, you were just an afterthought to be our servants".

[chiccy]

I double-checked the KJV and Hebrew versions. There are definitely issues with translation, right from the first page.

Genesis 1 translates the word "adam" as a man. You don't get the connection in Genesis 2 between "adam" and the word for earth, which is "adamah". You don't get the fact that the word "adam" is different from the usual word for "man", which is "ish". You don't get the fact that "helpmeet" is literally translated as "help opposite".

Why should a Free Jingerite care, apart from general nerdiness? Well, the KJV says that G-d created MAN, and then created women to be his helpmeet. A more accurate translation would be that G-d created The Adam (first human created from the ground), male and female, and then took a side from The Adam so that the woman would be a helper opposing/complementing the man. In other words, man and woman were two halves of a whole First Being, who was created in the Divine image. It's more yin and yang, and less "we were created first, you were just an afterthought to be our servants".

You make an interesting point. But what should the solution be? Do you think there shouldn't be English translations of the Bible, or that all translations should be annotated to explain the nuances of the original? There are many Bible translations that are annotated, but they aren't that popular because people don't want to spend their time reading "human" exegesis. Maybe they should, but there you go.

Meaning is always lost in translation, whether it's of the Bible or other literature. Should we simply not translate anything because translations are inherently flawed?

[Hane]

sand script! i LOVE this so much that i want to marry it.

"reads sand script" needs to be a posting level. we need a thread for suggested new posting level monikers.

I agree! This one is up there with "shinning moment."

[Fluffy-Boo]

I love the King James. It may be- and probably is- the best translation.

Please don't think I am intending to be rude or arrogant in saying this, but the King James Bible translation is amongst the worst of translations in circulation. The NIV is worse, indeed, but as far as accuracy to Biblical manuscripts and actual translation, the KJV lacks in almost all respects.

Bible translation is classified by terms such as literal, figurative, relational, and many more. The King James Version would be classified as a "figurative translation". Hebrew and Greek are not word for word languages when it comes to translation. Word order, indefinite articles, all sorts of issues occur in these languages that make accurate translation extremely difficult. Moreover, both Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek include all sorts of idioms and expressions that are key to their cultural context. So, in this respect, the KJV does well, working idioms out of the language.

The ASV is what is called a literal translation. It attempts to capture the literal wording of the Greek and Hebrew as much as possible. Sometimes idioms are lost in this.

So why is the KJV so lacking as a translation?

1. It is founded on a terrible version of the GNT, compiled by Erasmus. There are parts of Revelation that are adapted from the Latin Vulgate because he couldn't find manuscripts to complete his Greek New Testament. At the time Erasmus threw (and I mean, threw it together, he was severely time crunched by Spanish competitors) his GNT together he didn't have the earliest manuscripts. This is why the KJV contains so many spurious scriptures such as the last 11 verses in Mark and the famous 1 John 5:7-9 (ironically, the only direct reference to the Trinity and it isn't found in any manuscripts prior to the 7th or 8th century).

There was also more than one version of the KJV. The equally famous "He" and "She" translations are popular collector's items. The original KJV had a typo in the book of Ruth which is a bit embarrassing for the KJV only crowd. Or at least it should be--for any inerrancy advocates.

The ASV or NASB, from a scholarly point of view, is probably the best we have, as it based on the latest manuscripts and it, in most cases, italicizes spurious scripture or references them in the footnotes.

It is completely baffling to the theological world how any churches can claim that the KJV is God's true Bible. It wasn't even the first translation. Sure, it reads in pretty KJV English, but for heaven's sake, it has the word Lucifer written in the 14th chapter of Isaiah! What on earth is a LATIN WORD doing in the OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW?

Something to think about.

[Arete]

Fluffy Boo,

Thanks for the translation history of the KJV. I'm sort of a nerd so I love coming across the histories of scriptural documents. :geek:

[Conuly]

Please don't think I am intending to be rude or arrogant in saying this, but the King James Bible translation is amongst the worst of translations in circulation. The NIV is worse, indeed, but as far as accuracy to Biblical manuscripts and actual translation, the KJV lacks in almost all respects.

Except the prettiness factor. It really is done in very poetic language, something that is only helped by the several hundred years of changes in the English language since it was written.

In fact, seriously, that's probably EXACTLY the reason they think it's the best. Haven't you noticed they've got a real fetish for the past? Or what they think of as the past? Of course an English translation that's really old (to the point of being nearly incomprehensible to the average reader) and that their parents and grandparents used is going to be superior to other, more recent or less widely-spread translations. It's old, and it's traditional, and that's that.

They might come up with convoluted reasoning for it, but speaking seriously and without the sarcasm that's probably the root of it.

[Fluffy-Boo]

In fact, seriously, that's probably EXACTLY the reason they think it's the best. Haven't you noticed they've got a real fetish for the past? Or what they think of as the past? Of course an English translation that's really old (to the point of being nearly incomprehensible to the average reader) and that their parents and grandparents used is going to be superior to other, more recent or less widely-spread translations. It's old, and it's traditional, and that's that.

They might come up with convoluted reasoning for it, but speaking seriously and without the sarcasm that's probably the root of it.

That's likely a huge part of it.

It also comes down to their desperation to hold fast to "Biblical Inerrancy". This doctrine is virtually unsupportable. In fact, I'm daring enough to say completely insupportable.

If the Bible can be translated, corrected, sullied, corrected again, and revised numerous times, it really doesn't reflect "Divine Inspiration". God seems to have dropped the ball when it comes to the preservation of his sacred texts.

In order to cast a shadow over the very unprincipled and fallible history of Biblical compilation, some Christians state that the KJV is the real deal. They think it's the first translation.

These people have no concept of early church history. They have little concept of how hard scholars are still working to get the Bible as close to early manuscripts as possible. This is an ongoing science. Most fundamentalists hate all fields of science because science doesn't always lead us to certainty. And it's hard to form a uniform stable "moral" culture on uncertainty.

The KJV only crowd is the last bastion of "faith", albeit very ignorant faith. Contemporary church movements are moving away from the inerrancy doctrine. Some fundamentalists acknowledge the need for new translations, but still believe the original manuscripts (which have all been destroyed) were inspired. We have no proof of this, and never will. They were burned to promote doctrinal unity by the church.

Without "Inerrancy" the policy is weak. People will lack authority. Things need to be cut and dry, black and white, KJV only.

Human beings are very fragile creatures. The psychological ramifications of exploring ones faith are too searing for most people.

[quiningseven]

Fluffy- I've got to know... What was the typo in Ruth?

[Pad Lock]

As I understand it from growing up with these creeps they mostly rail against other translations because KJV is tradition. I have pastor friend that detests KJV and English translations of the Bible altogether because English is such a flat and unexpressive language. A good example is that there are multiple words for love in Greek depending on what you are referring to but all the words for love in Greek get translated as a single word in English. KJV is also traditionally the equivalent of the Malleus Maleficarum for the Protestant Church at large. It is their diving rod to uphold their theocratic hate mongering.

[camdendayton]

My dad, who is far from fundy, told me recently that if I decided to read the bible I should read KJV. He gave me the line that it was the first English translation so it's the best. I can tell you that when I do occasionally read some I don't read KJV. I barely got through Shakespeare in HS. I honestly didn't understand any of the books unless I already knew the stories from other sources. Whenever I read a part of the KJV cited somewhere I can't make heads or tails of it. Apparently I have not been blessed by the lord. :shhh:

[JesusFightClub]

JFC,

If you want to read the NT in hawaiian pidgin english, try "Da Jesus Book". Where the the KJV talks about the "kingdom of God", John and Jesus are "spreading aloha". It translates the entire New Testament, but I'm pretty sure someone like Steve Maxwell would self combust if he actually read a copy. Now there's a happy thought. :mrgreen:

Thanks for the recommendation - I read some of it online and I loved it!

Fluffy Boo, your posts are interesting and I wonder what your opinion is of such paraphrases (Message, Da Jesus Book, A Glasgow Bible)?

[alaeangelorum]

All this translation accuracy discussion is very interesting and I feel woefully uninformed about it - can anyone recommend me a good resource/book that looks at translations and controversies surrounding the Bible? I would google but I fear this is the kind of thing that would produce a lot of quite biased articles.

[quiningseven]

Misquoting Jesus is a good place to start, nice summary laid out especially for laymen. http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus- ... 0060738170

[Fluffy-Boo]

Fluffy- I've got to know... What was the typo in Ruth?

It was the Ruth 3:15 controversy.

The first KJV edition printed "he went into the citie". It was a typo.

The second edition corrected this and wrote "she".

Hope this helps.

[Fluffy-Boo]

All this translation accuracy discussion is very interesting and I feel woefully uninformed about it - can anyone recommend me a good resource/book that looks at translations and controversies surrounding the Bible? I would google but I fear this is the kind of thing that would produce a lot of quite biased articles.

I really recommend for anyone interested in the KJV, the book "God's Secretaries". This an EXCELLENT work, showing just how much corruption entered the text.

For anything related to Bible compilation try: Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament".

I like Bart Ehrman too, but he's the sort I'd read after Metzger. Get the technical out of the way first.

[Fluffy-Boo]

These three are all what would be called relational texts. The purpose of these translations is to make them understandable for certain cultures and languages.

When it comes to trying to extract the main message from a text, I think they can accomplish this. I've only actually held two of these in my hands, so I'm not expert on Da Jesus Book. I've only heard commentary on that one.

For scholarly study, I would use the ASV and NASB alongside an interlinear text.

[Fluffy-Boo]

I really should add...not snidely...that the Message Bible isn't really The Bible per se...it's an introduction into Christianity.

But hey, we're a tv culture. I can't expect everyone to wade their way through "Thees and Thines and Thous".

[Kishiria]

I double-checked the KJV and Hebrew versions. There are definitely issues with translation, right from the first page.

Genesis 1 translates the word "adam" as a man. You don't get the connection in Genesis 2 between "adam" and the word for earth, which is "adamah". You don't get the fact that the word "adam" is different from the usual word for "man", which is "ish". You don't get the fact that "helpmeet" is literally translated as "help opposite".

Why should a Free Jingerite care, apart from general nerdiness? Well, the KJV says that G-d created MAN, and then created women to be his helpmeet. A more accurate translation would be that G-d created The Adam (first human created from the ground), male and female, and then took a side from The Adam so that the woman would be a helper opposing/complementing the man. In other words, man and woman were two halves of a whole First Being, who was created in the Divine image. It's more yin and yang, and less "we were created first, you were just an afterthought to be our servants".

I've been reading the New American Bible Revised Edition. It's an Evol Cathlick Bible with amazing footnotes. The adam/adamah pun is described in the notes, which is what reminded me of it. The translation is also superb.

[Fluffy-Boo]

AND...I forgot to say that the first English translation the the Bible was the Wycliff NT translation. Then you've got the Tyndale...Cloverdale...Geneva (those two might be out of order, I'm doing a billion things while typing this...)

And way down in 1611 you get the KJV.

There's gotta be a website where you can look all this stuff up.

FLUFFY OUT.

[thoughtful]

sand script! i LOVE this so much that i want to marry it.

"reads sand script" needs to be a posting level. we need a thread for suggested new posting level monikers.

There is one! Post and suggest that -- I like it!

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8342

[Kaylee]

AND...I forgot to say that the first English translation the the Bible was the Wycliff NT translation. Then you've got the Tyndale...Cloverdale...Geneva (those two might be out of order, I'm doing a billion things while typing this...)

And way down in 1611 you get the KJV.

There's gotta be a website where you can look all this stuff up.

FLUFFY OUT.

You're right, Coverdale then Geneva. A little more confusing because the Geneva is very similar to the Tyndale (about 90% the same) and Coverdale was part of the group that helped produce it. What I've always found interesting is that the Geneva version was the one actually used by the Puritans, Pilgrims, etc and many early Americans were very opposed to replacing it with the KJV when it came out. Of course, the fundies would hate it because it says Adam and Eve made themselves "breeches", rather than aprons, out of fig leaves and they just can't have a bible that says the first woman wore britches.

Here's one timeline/history of the English translations:

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-engli ... e-history/