- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SamBee wrote:
Shawn, I can appreciate you say that it is not of practical contemporary use, and to an extent you’re right. However, I do feel that its difficulty is much exaggerated. Look at this -…
Yeah, those verses from Genesis are fairly simple. There are many verses throughout the KJV that are difficult, though. Following are some more verses to consider (I bolded some parts and some are not bolded because the whole verse doesn’t make much sense):“But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Matt 9:12-13 ) “And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold,
this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” (Luke 2:34-35) “And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.” (Luke 3:13)
“I am come to send fire on the earth;
and what will I, if it be already kindled?“(Luke 12:49) “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God
cometh not with observation:” (Luke 17:20) “Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.” (John 3:11) “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:18-19) “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God:
for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” (John 3:34) “But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit
we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am…”(John 7:26-28) “I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.” (1 Corinthians 15:31)
“O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.” (2 Corinthians 6:11-13) “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:20-23)
These are just a few I found recently. I have come across a lot more.
SamBee wrote:Also, I think folk don’t flex their reading muscles as they should these days.
I agree with you, in theory. I had to flex my reading muscles quite a bit to get through the Earl of Derby’s version of The Iliad, and it was good for me. However, I could study some of those verses listed above all day and not figure out what they mean.SamBee wrote:If there is a
practicalargument for the KJV, it’s that it’s a standard. I think it’s memorizing it. If everybody’s memorizing different versions, or if you read multiple versions it can be easy to muddle them. None of the other Bible translations have succeeded in becoming so universal.
The KJV cannot be called the standard anymore. More NLT and NIV bibles were sold in 2012.SamBee wrote:I’m going to put a vote in for the New English Version…
I like that format.
Shawn wrote:2. Many, many passages in the KJV are difficult to comprehend and this is not necessary.
SamBee wrote:2 – I think this is much exaggerated. We can still understand the bulk of Shakespeare quite easily.
Besides the verses I listed, I’ll just say that Shakespeare was not translating Greek texts from hundreds of years before his time
Shawn wrote:3. The KJV includes many errors.
SamBee wrote:3 – They all do! Some of the modern ones are biased one way and another. Discoveries of new variants in text have not always resolved questions, but sometimes create more questions.
I do think there are problems with the NLT and NIV. These are thought-by-thought translations. The ESV is more literal word-by-word translation.I’d bet you a Big Gulp that you couldn’t find half as many errors in the ESV than in the KJV.
Quote:The ESV is the most recent translation, which stands firmly in the formal equivalency tradition. It is a very solid translation in updated language that aims to reproduce the beauty of the KJV. The result is one of the most poetic and beautifully structured versions that maintains a high degree of accuracy and faithfulness to the original languages. (
http://www.gty.org/resources/Questions/QA167/Which-Bible-translation-is-best
Here’s one example of errors in the KJV:“6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (1 John 5:6-
In many (or most) modern translations, verse 7 is omitted. Here’s why:
Quote:This reading, the infamous
Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition.
Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind(either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215(in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the
Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. ( https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8 )
These verses are also largely omitted:Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44/Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Mark 16:9-20
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:3-4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:6p-7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
Sure, many of them are harmless, but they are still errors.
To be continued.
It’s always hard to understand a second language until you’ve been immersed in it. There is benefit, however, in learning a second language. There is even more benefit in learning a third and a fourth and a fifth language, and I have learned a lot by seeing how the Bible has been translated into other languages – not that I can read them but that I can learn from what they say when translated into English. For example, the difference in the creation account in Japanese is fascinating.
“Let there be light” sounds quite benign in English, even when followed by seeing that the matter obeyed. In Japanese, however, the grammatical construction depicts someone with great power and standing declaring forcefully, “There will be light!” and then overseeing his command to guarantee obedience. The first, English version could fit
ex nihilocreation – God snapping his fingers and saying, “I think I will conjure up some light.” The second, Japanese version fits better a lead scientist demanding that his subordinates create / organize matter in such a way that light appears. Personally, I like the second version, but it is based on the first version and might have lost something I value if the translation had occurred from a reworded version. A lot of nuance gets lost often in translation of any kind (like the distinction in Spanish between “knowing” something intellectually and “knowing” something emotionally), so I don’t favor scrapping one version for another exclusive version. I favor reading multiple versions and finding out which interpretation(s) touch my mind and my heart – and that happens sometimes with multiple translations. It’s not always one that wins.
Roy wrote:I have heard multiple times that the JST translation was to restore things that had been taken from the bible. This does not appear to be the case. I do not think that the church leaders would want to put the JST front and center. Better to keep it as a footnote.
The oldest New Testament manuscript we have is from c. 125, which is only a fragment of the book of John. Regarding what may be missing, it is inconclusive at this point.Since starting this thread, I’ve changed my views on what could or should be done. It would be cool to have a minorrevision of the KJV. Generally, it would leave the language as it is and update only text that is especially difficult to understand. Like SamBee said, a can of worms would be opened by making such changes. What about bible verses that appear in the Book of Mormon or D&C? I think there would actually be very few of these verses that would be changed. I haven’t noticed any troublesome verses in the bible that also appear in latter-day scriptures. Interesting.
I would really like to have a version formatted like the New English Version.
Well, I’ve spent too much time on this. I doubt any changes to our bible will be made in the near future. Maybe I’ll revise the New Testament. I wouldn’t change any words; I would add annotations in brackets or something.
Shawn wrote:Since starting this thread, I’ve changed my views on what could or should be done. It would be cool to have a
minorrevision of the KJV. Generally, it would leave the language as it is and update only text that is especially difficult to understand. Like SamBee said, a can of worms would be opened by making such changes. What about bible verses that appear in the Book of Mormon or D&C? I think there would actually be very few of these verses that would be changed. I haven’t noticed any troublesome verses in the bible that also appear in latter-day scriptures. Interesting.
I would really like to have a version formatted like the New English Version.
Well, I’ve spent too much time on this. I doubt any changes to our bible will be made in the near future. Maybe I’ll revise the New Testament. I wouldn’t change any words; I would add annotations in brackets or something.
I could agree with that. I do find most of it understandable, but there are some areas that could certainly use clearer more modern English. If you undertake of those revisions, keep us posted! I like to hear the perspectives of others on scriptures, especially from those who have studied and compared and aren’t just spouting the perspectives and opinions of others (which both church members and non-members are sometimes guilty of).
The NIV is certainly NOT standard round here!!! It gets used in some churches here, but not others, the kids tend to use yet another version, free Bibles given away come in a dozen varieties including txt spk etc etc. NIV is one of several versions commonly seen. As a point of interest, I have a bilingual version of the Torah. The English used is KJV… yet none of the synagogues round here have graduated onto NIV… I notice one of the archaic words you mention is Kindle. Not only has Amazon chosen that for its tablet, we still use the word kindling to refer to small bits of wood for starting a fire.
However, I think we agree on the formatting question. It’s better to have the verse numbers in the margin, quotation marks and differentiation of prose and poetry etc. I have a Book of Mormon which has been reformatted, it’s much easier to read. We forget there’s poetry in it.
For the record, I have never used the NLT offline, and don’t know anyone who uses a copy. Here are my desires for a Bible:
* Well, formatted for readability.
* Agenda free – KJV tones down verses about drink because King James was a drunk, NIV tones down references about homosexuality to avoid upsetting modern sensibilities, Jerusalem panders to RC doctrine, New World to Jehovahs Witnesses
* Well written – KJV has literary qualities modern versions don’t have.
* Well judged translation – many passages/words have multiple meanings, but literalism gets in way of style.
An example of literalism in KJV is “know” which means sex in Genesis, and comes straight out of Hebrew.
Some of the most precise translations are incidentally the most ugly, since languages differ greatly in sentiment and style.
SamBee, I didn’t say the NIV is the standard now. Neither is the NLT. Those two outsold the KJV in 2012. I just meant there is NO standard anymore. I didn’t say “kindle” is an archaic word. I listed that as a verse that is difficult to understand. “…and what will I, if it be already kindled?” I challenge anyone to explain the meaning of that without using any resources.
Here’s the ESV: “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled!”
Check out the Twible. ( http://www.amazon.com/Twible-Chapters-Bible-Characters-Humor/dp/0989774708/ref=la_B001ILKDWU_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384314366&sr=1-1 I couldn’t stop laughing.
KJV was, for centuries, the standard (not for RCs) perhaps. Nothing else has replaced it. Could you imagine if there were three hundred versions of the works of Shakespeare? Actors would get really confused.
* To be or not to be that is the question
* Should I stay or should I go now, do I need to ask
* Am I to exist, not to exist, a pertinent question
* should I die or not die, why am I asking?
* being or non being, an interrogative statement
* I be, I not be, you tell me
* Is I is or is I ain’t? Dats da ting
* Tae be or no tae be, noo there’s yer question
* Gonna be or no gonna be, what ya think
SamBee wrote:KJV was, for centuries, the standard (not for RCs) perhaps. Nothing else has replaced it.
SamBee, I really don’t mean to argue about this – I just want to convery my meaning better. Yes, the KJVwasthe standard for centuries and nothing has replacedit as such. At this time, I think there is nostandard. No single version is used to an extent to qualify it as that. In the most recent years, both the NIV and the NLT have outsold the KJV, but neither of those are the standard. Calling any of these the standard is like calling iphone or Android the standard, and it’s not that simple. I do think standards can change over time. But clearly in the LDS culture, it is the standard.
Heber13 wrote:I do think standards can change over time.
But clearly in the LDS culture, it is the standard.
Yes, it is definitely the standard in the LDS church.If the top leaders said we are switching to a different/new version, it would be accepted. So, this really isn’t a concern IMO.
Shawn wrote:If the top leaders said we are switching to a different/new version, it would be accepted. So, this really isn’t a concern IMO.
Agreed. And since the leadership hasn’t and likely never will, I don’t care much for the title of this thread, and to your OP which reads:
Quote:6. Let’s ditch the KJV and make a new bible!
…I would say nope, there is no reason to.
Scripture should be revered.
Heber13 wrote:Shawn wrote:If the top leaders said we are switching to a different/new version, it would be accepted. So, this really isn’t a concern IMO.
Agreed. And since the leadership hasn’t and likely never will, I don’t care much for the title of this thread, and to your OP which reads:
Quote:6. Let’s ditch the KJV and make a new bible!
…I would say nope, there is no reason to.
Scripture should be revered.
Ouch
Shawn wrote:SamBee wrote:I don’t think it “sucks” at all. It is one of the greatest works of literature in the English language. In terms of influence upon English – including the colloquial variety – it is more influential than any other work. Even Shakespeare doesn’t come close, and he gave us many popular phrases. I have a book next door which details the large number of phrases which it has given us.
You got me thinking. The KJV Bible is a venerable and valuable work. I really am sorry for saying it sucks. I can be more respectful while advocating for the use of something new.And this:
Shawn wrote:Since starting this thread, I’ve changed my views on what could or should be done. It would be cool to have a
minorrevision of the KJV. Generally, it would leave the language as it is and update only text that is especially difficult to understand… I would really like to have a version formatted like the New English Version.
Well, I’ve spent too much time on this. I doubt any changes to our bible will be made in the near future. Maybe I’ll revise the New Testament. I wouldn’t change any words; I would add annotations in brackets or something.
After all, if anyone stops reading the KJV in favor of something else, it would not necessarily mean they no longer revere it. I am going to update the title.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.