Category: philosophy/religion topics
So this thread is inspired by a conversation I had with a user of the Zone after reading her profile.
Some Christians and Bible readers are very specific about which Bible they read. They reject every other version of the Bible and only trust the version they read. Other Christians and Bible readers have read several versions of the Bible.
Which version of the Bible do you prefer and why? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it?
I have read a few versions. I like the Easy to Read version because well it's easy to read and understand. The thing I dislike about it is that some verses are merged.
I don't like the King James Version because I don't understand it. It's in English that hasn't been spoken for hundreds of years. I had a more positive view of the Bible after reading it in modern English because I understood it better.
I don't have a preference on what version I read. I like the new and old King James. I also like the new international.
I know a lot of people say that it is wrong to change the bible. That it loses the meaning with change. But I also feel like it is good for those who don't understand the old King James Version to get a copy that they do understand so they can learn.
So if it is important, then why don't they make it their duty to learn the old language to read and learn the Bible? I think that it is more important to try to learn and make an effort than it is to read a specific book. With that said, then we can say that any English copies are wrong to read because they aren't the irridgenal language that the bible was ever printed in...
So all of us who reads it in English are wrong.
Or are we?
Did God ever say that we must read the bible only in the language wich it was first written? Or did he say to read and learn... Would he care if we didn't read it in the first words it was written, or is it more important to him , for us, to just learn and believe?
I enjoy both the King James and the New King James just because of the language. The KJV has some archaic language, but I think in some of the retranslations it loses some of its potency. But the NKJV has the same structure but updated language.
The English Standard Version (ESV) is like the NKJV, but I have not as familiar with it as I have not studied it thoroughly, but many of the blogs I read use it and when I go back to the KJV it stays true to the meaning but updates the vocabulary.
I have used the NIV, and still do, if I want to read it in braille.
I don't like some of the translations like the Message or the Amplified, as they completely add to or change the wording entirely.
Kate
I like te new international verion for its ease of reading, and the King James for its content. The issue I always used to struggle with is each version of the bible brins its own interpretations of words and meanings. Thus it becomes a question of which one to believe. For instance, When speaking about the people of Moses trying to escap ejypt, one verion ould say (and I'm paraphrasing) "I the lord will harden Phaero's heart" - this is when he's talking abou the plagues, and how the Phaero will not release the jes no matter how bad things get for him. This makes it sound like God is responsibl. In another translation, the same line reads "And phaero shall harden his heart", which makes it soun like it' Phaero, not God who is responsible. To me, the latter makes moe sense, which is good because that's the version I tend to follow.:)
So when I did read the Bible I most often read the New Living Translation, once I found it. The idea that King James was the original is technically a farce. Maybe spiritually it is the way or whatever to some people, but my reasons were all rational and not spiritually-based.
The King James was the first publicly available non-Latin Bible in England and it was translated from translations, not original documents. I have never translated a translation in my life, and would never have gotten away with doing so when working for the Federal government as a translator back int the 1980s, not without some serious notations to that effect, citing sources and all.
The New Living, from what I found out, uses all the Dead Sea Scrolls info and other early documents discovered by modern archeological science.
I can technically read Shakespeare, who was one of the King James Bible's editors, so I could technically read the translation-of-several-translations that is the King James.
But when I was puzzling with some stuff about monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam, in particular after 9/11, I started reading some of the text in Spanish, another language I can understand. All the translations for Spanish have differences in meaning as they do in English. The main meaning is the same, but for one to say who added to what you would either have to have a strict Anglophilic perspective or something similar.
AAnd there we have one of the many reasons there's so many perspectives on Christianity.
Oh one major difference to be perfectly just, fair and honest:
Someone mentioned the Message. The Message and the Living Bible are both paraphrases, not translations. A paraphrase is not a translation and would get you booted in a court of law if you attempted to paraphrase somebody's birth certificate, for instance, rather than translate it.
That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just mean they are paraphrases.
The New Living Translation is done by a large Christian publishing house called Tyndale house, and as I mentioned the research I did showed they went to great lengths to do comparative analysis on existing documents from the original languages in particular newer-discovered documents.
It also provides real citations and footnotes which are up to snuff in terms of modern translation of documents / explanation of language differences. I may have serious questions about Churchianity and a lot of things related to it, but this one sticks out to me as something of a quality piece of workmanship.
The trouble is, we have Christians translating the Bible, Hindus translating their texts, and so on.
If we traveled to a Spanish speaking country, I would not be allowed to translate any of my wife's documents, because of bias. Not in most nations. In the U.S., I would literally have to have that document re-analyzed by a third-party unbiased source and notes would be added to that effect to my translation.
I am not saying that the Christians are trying to be improper translators. What I'm saying, as someone who has actually translated government documents, is that society has clearly come to realize that an unbiased translation where no emotions are involved is the purest possible translation.
In other words, you could no more count on a translation by a Christian / Hindu of their respective texts than you could a translation done by Richard Dawkins of the same texts. It requires a discipline of mind beyond most people's ability to remain unbiased.
I know: I didn't even know these people and yet there were times when I translated something for a mother and a baby, and knew that my translation meant she was going to get sent back.
I don't know if it's possible to have translation of these documents without bias, but I sure wish it was. For better or for worse.
That's an interesting point about bias. It would be interesting to read a Bible translated by people who aren't Christians.
I know from reading the Koran it is possible to work out the perspective of the translator by reading the translation, even without understanding the original language. It would be interesting to see translations of the texts of other religions by people who didn't follow those religions or better still weren't familiar with them.
I read the King James every day. If there's something I don't understand, I use a dictionary. I grew up with the King James, and to my ear, nothing else sounds like the Bible. That's personal opinion, but from the scholarly standpoint, there are many reasons I use it which are beyond the scope of a board in a public forum. I'd be glad to discuss it privately though.
Tried reading The Message once, and cracked up laughing.
It's pretty entertaining!
I read the niv usually because I wasn't raised Christian. when I became one a few years ago I wanted something easy to understand. I have a new king james version in braille hardback though that I turn to a lot because I like the feel of a bible in my hands and not just reading from a display.
Ah and having it on paper means you can find things quicker.
I should say, what I said earlier about the King James is not scholarly, and I have no real right or desire to level criticism at it. Take it or leave it, my opinion comes mainly from having had the responsibility of being a government translator. But translator does not mean scholar.
Leo, I was not directing my comments maliciously, and I'm sorry if it was taken so. I have nothing at all against anyone who reads a different translation of the Bible, but there are some reasons why I cannot.
I'm curious, and I won't lie and say that I take this seriously, I'm just curious here. If you're reading the words of God, and all powerful, all knowing being, and you're trusting his spirit to infuse the words with meaning, shouldn't all the bibles be easily understood? Cuz, no one actually follows what the bible says. No one actually reads it for content, they read it to pretend they believe the crap it says. If you followed it you'd be in prison several times over right now, new and old testament included. So you, according to every Christian I've asked, have to trust that the holy spirit will give you the meaning through meditation. So, since God is all powerful, and what's more he wants you to understand his words, couldn't the bible literally be nonsensical scribbles on a piece of papyrus and you'd still get the message? Why is God so castrated theologically speaking that you have to seek out a version of his word which first was written more than ten centuries and often closer to twenty centuries after the time of its first conglomeration, and second is easy for you to read? Shouldn't they all be easy to read? Its not like you actually do what it says anyway, none of you do, so why does the ease of reading make a difference?
And lets not even get into the paradoxical idea of a loving God allowing his inspired or direct word to be adulterated by mistranslations without even lifting an all powerful finger to stop or correct it so that people could follow what he wants. Lets ignore the fact that according to the bible itself, in genesis to be exact, God himself causes the mass of languages which are now presenting Christians with all the translation problems that plague their little pocket book of ficticious fairy tales. Lets skim over the fact that any omnipotent and omnibenevolent being could simply make you born with the knowledge of his existence already understood in your mind without influencing your free will one way or another. Oh, and of course lets completely disregard the fact that God knew when he started this whole thing we now call the universe that we'd have all these mistranslations and mistakes, and yet still punishes you for being unlucky enough to lay hands on a wrong translation even more than two millennia after he made that stupid self-sacrifice thing. Ignoring all of that we're left with the simple question of why you'd need an easy translation of the words of what you have somehow convinced yourself is an all powerful and all knowing being which created both you and the book you're reading in the first place. Can anyone explain that?
While cody is a bit more blunt than I'd have been, I 100 percent agree with what he said. Its just simple logic, and I don't see a way around it that doesn't involve making excuses for god.
Jesse, I did not take offense to your comment. I just took the opportunity to differentiate scholar from translator. This line gets confused at least in mainstream universities at least. They are two different disciplines.
No prob, Leo. Just didn't want my post to come off snarky.
Jesse, You're honestly one of the last people i'd associate snark with, in relation to their board posts, on this sight.
Well, I know how comments can be misunderstood.
Hello back too you. I am new to the site! And as a comment too your post! Read the bible you want! Weather it's KJV or Njv the words are a little different but has the same meaning. It should not matter. That is just my opionion!
That's precisely the problem I struggled with with Christianity for most of my life, Lightning. It's why I remained an agnaustic, barely giving the idea of God a second thought, and being ... perhaps not as critical as you, but pretty bloody critical. We've gone into this time and time again however, and so all I'll say is that's one of the many reasons I follow the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not only do they have additional material which supplament the old and new testaments (Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants) but our King James version of the bible, and the other scriptures are loaded with footnotes, and other material which adds clarification to many of the very same biblical disturbances you are fond of bringing up. We also have publically accessible scripture study manuals a plenty, all with their own sitations. We are also taught to read the scriptures and study them in context - the contenxt of the times, and circumstances, rather than just looking at a single verse or even chapter of scripture and taking it at face value. Add to that the continuing revelation of the prophets, and personal revelation coming from scripture study, and attending the temple, and I find most of the concerns I used to have about the bible being answered.Of course, the LDS church isn't for everyone, either due to personal belief, or a misunderstanding of what it is and believes. And yes, I have either heard or red a lot of anti-lds material. If I'm going to follow something, I want to know all about it. The question of why God allows so many differing translations, rather than just a single one is a good question, and the one on which this church was founded. I don't have an answer which will satisfy you. I'm not even sure it satisfies me. It all comes down to our agency. God will interact with the world, and after issuing many a warning, may even get a little heavy-handed at times, but he will not interfere with our free will. The gospel as it was intended did exist, but then the dark ages, the great apostacy where only the elect had access came about, and, and Constantine and his councel of Nicea, and everything just sort of fell apart there for a while until the eighteen hundreds. But that's only our perspective, and though it makes sense to me, it's not an explanation which will satisfy. Especially when it's been broken down into such a simplistic explanation as this.
Ironically, that is the reason why I gave up trying to figure out what was the right religion, and decided to not believe any of them. There's too much guess work involved and honestly speaking, none of it is proven to be right.
OK kiddies, repeat after me: THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC. THERE IS NO U IN THE WORD AGNOSTIC.
And there is only one A in the word agnostic. It comes from the greek word nosis. That should tell you how to spell it.
Spelling aside though, Gnosticism has nothing to do with belief. You should still be an agnostic. If you're not, you're being dishonest.
The morman church has its own cavalcade of preposterous, childish and frankly stupid notions that I am well convinced require a lobotomy to believe, but that is a different board post.
Actually, it's m o r m o n, which is funny, because if you take out that second m, you get moron. How fitting.
In answer to Silver Lightning's question, one has to understand what they'r reading before they can interpret it. If the Holy Spirit was going to interpret the Bible for everybody there would be no need for any translations.
People also have to make some effort rather than being lazy hoping the Holy Spirit or God will do everything for them.
But why are their so many different interpretations? Are you saying that those who do not interpret the Bible the same way you do are misunderstanding what is being said in the Bible?
And, if God is not going to translate anything, and you have to depend on being lucky enough to get the correct interpretation, how can God condemn you if you get it wrong? Relatedly, how could the correct translation, assuming that God doesn't interpret, be in English? English wasn't even a language for centuries after the events in the Bible supposedly took place, and wasn't common in the geographic area for centuries after that. That makes even less sense than Mormonism, and that's saying something.
I came across this link when I was watching some YouTube clips. I figured I would post it here since this topic has been around, plus it has to do with the topic. The fact that someone can interpret God's intent in the way that is displayed in the link is scarey. I highly encourage you to watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yES1izpdf0
Wow. What an arrogant bitch. I can only hope someone someday wipes her out along with the rest of the Westborough Baptist Cult.
Bomb the Westboro Craptists on a sunday morning when everyone's inside.
Yeah really.