"We Have Too Many High Sounding Words, And Too Few Actions That Correspond With Them."
- Abilgail Adams (1744-1818)
To sum up MY opinions: Translate my Translation ~A MountainWings Original~
1. The "authorized" KJV was never really authorized. Read on to learn how the King's mistress helped the Bible.
2. The NIV is a more accurate translation from the original.
3. I can read and understand the modern translations better.
4. I've never known anyone to falter due to the translation.
5. The problem with Bibles is not the translation; it's that people are neither reading nor following them.
Read on for the rationale and explanations:
The battle over translations is not new and is very mild now compared to what it has been historically. When the Bible was only in Latin, you were burned at the stake if you were caught with ANY translation other than the Latin which only the priests could read. William Tyndale who translated the first English Bible was killed for translating it. The church called it heresy. Eighty percent of the KJV came from the Tyndale Bible.I would like to present some history and MY opinion on translations.
This is just MY opinion and some history. It is neither to dissuade nor encourage you to read the KJV but to simply explain my rationale why I choose to often use other versions.
First, ALL of the English versions of the Bible are translations.NONE are the original word. With any translation, there is some loss of meaning and nuance. To my knowledge there is no way to avoid this unless the original writer is fluent in several languages and writes his own material in each language. That is the only way to truly accurately capture exactly what the speaker meant and even then some languages are more adept at expressing certain points than others.
The Bible says, "God is Love" but there are several Greek words for Love. Translating from the Greek "agape" to the English "love" loses something in specificity of meaning.
I am sure there are some modern English words for which there are no exact Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew equivalents.
The translation loss rule even applies in science. To change energy from one form to another is never 100% efficient.Something is always lost in the translation. To change coal into electricity is not efficient. To change electricity into light loses a great deal of the energy as heat. To change fossil fuels into energy that moves your car loses a major portion of the energy just due to translation or changing from one form to another.
Not only do you lose with the translation of fuel to motion, you even lose with the translation of motion to motion. The turning of your car engine never transfers 100% of the energy to your wheels. There are frictional losses in the transmission.
Even in engineering and science, translation from one form to another is rarely 100% efficient.
So it is with language, especially complicated spiritual things.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament was in Koine Greek. Jesus and the disciples are believed to have spoken mainly Aramaic with Koine Greek as a second language.
There is a fascinating history and timeline of the Bible that you should read. It explains how the battle over translations is nothing new. It explains how the first "authorized" Bible by the King was because of the King's mistress. It's fascinating reading. http://www.mountainwings.com/past/bibh.htm
The actual Authorized King James Version was never officially sanctioned by the English monarchy or the clerical hierarchy of the Church of England. It was never officially "authorized."Have you ever wondered why the Catholic Church doesn't use the KJV? Read the story:
http://www.mountainwings.com/past/bibh.htm
The actual original "Authorized" KJV has 14 more books (commonly called the Apocrypha) than the KJV we use today.
I will admit that the King James Version is without a doubt far more poetic than any other version. It flows with a grace and style that is unmatched. The problem with the KJV is that the meaning is often unclear.
My preference is the New International Version (NIV). The NIV was translated from the original languages. When I am preparing sermons, I often check the KJV and the NIV against the original Greek and Hebrew to see which is more accurate to the original.
From my experience, it's the NIV. As a matter of fact, I have only found one instance in actual use where the King James Version was more accurate. That's Matthew 6:22-23.
"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." KJV
"The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light." NIV
The original text does actually say "eye" instead of "eyes" but that isn't going to send anyone careening off to a life of sin.
This is the only instance that "I've" found using the Bible where the KJV is more accurate to the original text than the NIV. As a matter of fact, that single eye isn't too easy to understand anyway and opens up a level of discussion that's rather complicated.
There are two or three valid instances where the KJV is more accurate to the original meaning but there are many more instances where the NIV is more accurate especially considering modern language understanding.
Check it yourself but be sure to check against a Greek/Hebrew dictionary and what the original Greek/Hebrew text actually said.Often we base it on what WE THINK it said, meant, or should say.It only counts what was actually said from the original texts.Check the text first.
Have you ever listened to Hip Hop rap or Acid Rock music?
If you have and you are not of that generation, you have a hard time understanding the words. To those who listen to rap and acid rock regularly, the words are as clear as a bell. Language of the times is best understood by those of those times.
Often I must read other translations to figure out exactly what the Bible is saying because the KJV leaves some doubt as to the actual meaning simply because of the language.
The other big factor is this.
I have yet to find a single solitary soul who has erred in life due to the translation. Nary a one. I'm not saying that there aren't any whose lives have descended to a life of wanton recklessness because a word was mistranslated in a modern Bible.There could very well be, it's just that I've never met or heard of them.
Everyone whom I know who is backslidden or frontslidden for that matter (what do you call people who've never been straight to start with?) isn't even reading the Bible (any translation).
I often use other translations simply because people can understand them better (including me), and words without understanding are simply not as good as words with understanding.
The modern translations are much easier to read. I don't have to spend mental energy trying to figure out what the language means.
Paul said it when talking about speaking in tongues but not being able to clearly understand:
(1 Cor 14:6-9 KJV) Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
At any rate, go and read the history of the Bible. If you read the Bible, you should know its proper history. All of it.
Bible History
http://www.mountainwings.com/past/bibh.htm
If you do an internet search on "KJV vs NIV controversy" you will find plenty of websites devoted to the argument, most in favor of the KJV.
Again in MY opinion, below is one of the most balanced websites that deals with the controversy from a point of historical truth.It explains WHY there are differences between the two versions.
http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Conspiracy.html
~A MountainWings Original~
Last week I got into a discussion after watching a CNN special on Jesus in preparation for Easter. We discussed in very little detail the Apocrypha and the historical book Josephus. I received this email this morning and though wow, once again mountain wing's sends me an email about something I need at the right time. Now I know where I can find more information on this topic and have a credibile source and not some idiot who wrote a bunch of crap during his spare time while smoking joints on his state college.
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm
Flavius Josephus's book is a historical reference of the times around AD 70. It is not a religious book but historically discusses in detailed accounts of Jesus amongst many other things of that time including the downfall of Jerusalem. So for you non-believers out there, I suggest reading this book if you need proof there was ever a person who lived in those times named Jesus who was performing miracles. Now this does not prove Jesus was the Son of Man and the Son of God, but it does account for his living.
