HelenM

[I thought I'd better take this discussion about the KJV to a new thread]

I do object when people think they're better just because of their lack of a religious belief but I doubt they would care about my objections so I probably wouldn't bother to post that in response to them. I'd probably just avoid them because I'd anticipate not being able to have a decent discussion with them, since they are too willing to over-generalize about people.

But - are you saying the reformers went too far for you too? Because you are the one who said 'please don't quote that version here'. Do you think the NIV took out some changes the reformers made?

In my estimation, the differences aren't significant - in other words, 'they affect no major doctrine'.

I think the disagreements by Christians all reading the same version, on how to interpret and apply what the Bible says (and I think I'd still say this even if I only include those Christians who say they believe it's God's Inerrant Word) far outweigh the textual differences between versions.

I expect many people here would agree

Helen

JEST2ASK

I am not many ... but I agree the differences in translation / versions are minor without "major" effect on doctrine.

However I like reading the King James it just sounds more "Biblical" even though I keep seeing things on this board about it's accuracy and how it is based on late sources.

I also agree that people are way too quick to generalize and judge others based on a particular aspect ie belief non-belief.

Finally just wanted to say I enjoy reading your posts you seem to be such a wise and gentle spirit ( Yep I have stopped by your site just never responded)

HelenM

Thanks, JEST2ASK

Tom Sawyer

Just as a general reference for myself and others here who don't know - what are the differences between the KJ and Geneva versions of the Bible? What does it mean that one was more influenced by reformers?

If the only differences are textual and no major doctrines are affected, then why are these differences even an issue? If the two versions interpret some major or minor issues differently, which ones are they?

HelenM

Who knows whether it's accurate, but fwiw here's a webpage about the Geneva Bible and the King James Bible. It gives some reasons why King James didn't like the Geneva Bible.

The Geneva Bible

I've never heard much good about King James. I doubt that Christians would rush to align themselves with his reasons for liking or disliking a Bible translation - although I could be wrong.

Here's another page:

The 1599 Geneva Bible notes

It sounds like King James thought the Geneva Bible notes could encourage people to disobey the King and he didn't like that at all. So the King James version replaced it - in England at least.

Helen

malookiemaloo

I concur with the responses to your views on the KJ regarding doctrine.

But my view of the Bible is that it COMMUNICATES God's word. Therefore the more accurate and easily understandable the better.

No, I don't think any new translation altered any points of doctrine but Bible translation is a living science and improvements are constantly being made. i always found the preface to the NIV very interesting.

Glad to see the responses on the Geneva Bible. Must investigate.

Back in KJ days, the King would look very closely at approving a Bible translation-particularly such a landmark one as it turned out to be.

I heard once (don't know if it's true) that in Chairman Mao days, China allowed Christians into China to work. Because the Bible says 'obey your rulers'. So that both KJ and Chairman Mao who read the Bible!!


Alistair

HelenM

Oh, I totally agree that one may as well read a translation that is easy to understand, rather than one where one is going to stumble over words that have fallen out of regular use or whose meanings have changed (which is more confusing) in the last 400 or so years.

(If that is the only consideration)

I was surprised you didn't make this your reason but instead said King James didn't like the King James version. My guess is that he probably would dislike the NIV for the same reasons he disliked the KJV, if he did in fact dislike it. I.e. his reasons probably had little to do with whether the text was faithful to the originals.

So, your first response made me curious but had you simply said what you just said, then that would have made sense to me - and still does

I find it a bit troublesome, myself - I'm not convinced that endless committees produced a 'better' result than the few men of faith who produced the KJV. I mean, what produces a good translation?

I think the NIV translators were quite biased by their theology - I can't see why else they'd come up with some of the more egregiously misleading translations such as:

Gal 1:8 (NIV) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

vs

Gal 1:8 (KJV) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The NIV is simply wrong to translate 'accursed' as 'eternally condemned' - the translators gave the word a theological spin the original never had. I think the way people use "Go to hell!" today, not intending to make a theological pronouncement about someone's eternal destiny but rather simply state their irritation, is close to what Paul meant, there. The NIV clearly missed the mark on that expression imo and thankfully the TNIV (the update of the NIV in progress, rejected a priori by many conservatives as too gender-inclusive ) has fixed that.

But such examples as that one make me wary of the accuracy of the NIV. It supports evangelical Christian theology very well - I wonder if it does so too well - meaning that we have a circular situation where the Bible translation by evangelicals is done to be consistent with their theology and then the Bible translation is used to determine what theology the Bible supports... Ok, so call me a skeptic...but, it was through reading the text and looking up original words and other translations that I came to wonder about its accuracy and theological bias. I started out trusting in its reliability and still would have were it not for what I found as I read/studied it. The method used of 'dynamic equivalence' rather than word-for-word translating really does open the door for bias, albeit unintentional.

Go for it!

Yes, but, I submit, not for its theological accuracy or faithfulness to the originals (as best we know what they say). More for the reasons that those two articles mention, i.e. to check that they are going to encourage the King's subjects to be loyal rather than rebellious.

Well, it doesn't surprise me to hear that rulers have used the Bible to further their own agendas

Btw I like your username

take care
Helen

ashibaka

King James Version

Pros:
- Approved by the King of England.

Cons:
- Translators didn't know what "Lucifer" means.

I agree that the NIV is a bit extreme in its translation, but the NKJV, NRSV, and other more recent translations trump the KJV in terms of accuracy.

Shake

Yes, but isn't it just a little disturbing that there are so many different versions? With recent pushes towards things like gender-neutral language isn't the message getting lost in the semantics? I just don't get how the message stays intact through so many translations/edits/rewrites.

I've read, from links on these boards, that if you took a sampling of Bibles from the last millenia, they wouldn't even all have the same number of books! What's up with that?

Translator: Hey, what about the book of <name>? It's kind of a downer.
Editor: Yeah, I noticed that too. Let's just leave it out. Besides, it's just not holy enough, you know.
Translator: Losing book of <name>! You got it, chief!

malookiemaloo