I'm back with an explanation

[Old Ironsights]

Congats Scott.
It has been awhile since I have read my Bible like that. I prefer my KJV besides being what I grew up with I find that the old language forces me to think more on what I am reading. Well since I am on duty tonight I'll swing by the house and pick up my copy I have the next 24hours to start the reading it again. Thanks for the insperation Scott.

KJV is textually beautiful, but it's really a poor translation... it's really more of a transliteration - and closer to a paraphrase in some cases.

A really good thing to do if you want to study the Bible (NT anyway) is to get a "paralell" NT in several translations. I have one which compares KJV to NIV to Phillips to Greek passage by passage.

The Concordant Literal New Testament is interesting too.

Somthing I like to remember when doing Biblical Studies (as opposed to Theological Interpretive Studies)...

... let it be remembered that God inspired the original documents of the Scriptures, but He did not inspire versions made of them by men.

[Nath]

Just needed to say RESPECT Sir

[Bigahh]

Welcome back! Seems longer than it has actually been. We could use a couple more of those hunting pictures up here in the North. Already getting to be a long winter.

[Charles]

KJV is textually beautiful, but it's really a poor translation... it's really more of a transliteration - and closer to a paraphrase in some cases.

The difference between 1611 and 2008 English aside, the KJV is really an excellent translation of some very poor manuscripts.

The old Greek texts we have today are far older than those used to translate the KJV, having been discovered since 1611. The vast majority of old text we have now were not known to those folks who translated the KJV.

There was even one of the Corinthinan epistles (IIR) for which they did not have a Greek text. They translated the Vulgate (Latin) text into Greek and from Greek into English.

Considering what this guys have to work with, they did a wonderful job. That said, I don't use the KJV very often because the archaic English bogs me down.

I tend to use the Revised STandard Version (RSV) not because it is all that great a translation, but after 40 years of serious use, I know where most of the pot holes are and can stear around them. I don't have another 40 years left to spend studying another test.

If I was to start all over again, I think I would start with the New Internation Version (NIV), as I know a number of the folks involved in the translation project and know they are very serious folks. But, I might change my mind, if I really got up to speed with the translations that have come down the pike in the past 25 years.

I think it was Billy Graham, who once responded to a fellow that it bothered him there was so much of the Bible he didn't understand... "It is not the portions of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it is the parts I do understand that bother me the most.". I can give an Amen or a +1 to that.

[Old Ironsights]

KJV is textually beautiful, but it's really a poor translation... it's really more of a transliteration - and closer to a paraphrase in some cases.

The difference between 1611 and 2008 English aside, the KJV is really an excellent translation of some very poor manuscripts.

Pedant.

But Point taken.

[Ysabel Kid]

The most important thing is that a fellow enjoys it at whatever pace he's reading and has a little time to ponder what he read. It slowly soaks in over the years in a very good way. I have a leather bound journal that I'm recording different scriptures in and a very brief thought about each scripture that strikes me. This journal is for my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren to read and learn from if I die. I've already told them what I'm doing so they keep it and read it. I like to read it with a hot cup of tea, coffee, or apple cider. It's my time with God and I enjoy it very much.

What an outstanding idea!!!

[engravertom]

The old Greek texts we have today are far older than those used to translate the KJV, having been discovered since 1611. The vast majority of old text we have now were not known to those folks who translated the KJV.

Now you are getting into textual criticism!



I'll say that you make good points, but for what little I know about it, (and it is indeed very little!) I'm still more of a majority text guy myself.

take care,

Tom

[Old Ironsights]

The old Greek texts we have today are far older than those used to translate the KJV, having been discovered since 1611. The vast majority of old text we have now were not known to those folks who translated the KJV.

Now you are getting into textual criticism!...

Hey, I may be a Deist/Heathen, but I'm a well read Deist/Heathen with a good bit of Comparative Theology sloshing about in this thick skull...

[Charles]

No.. It is not really "textual criticism". Textual criticism and it's various incarnations like "form criticism" attempt to use the form/literary/writing style of the text to break the code of who wrote it and why.

The notion of textual criticism is not bad in and of itself, but it has given birth to a number of number of very liberal/destructive theories such as the Graf-Wellhausen/JEPD theory of Old Testament authorship.

I an not a fan or practictioner of textual criticism. I prefer to concentrate on what the text meant to the original reader/listener. This involves of course understanding the cultural and historical context of the text.

Most of the really squirrley notions of what the Bible says or doesn't say comes from removing a passage or two from it contextual matrix and failure to place it in it's cultural and historical context. Do that, and a person can truly make the Bible say almost any darn fool thing.

From time to time, I watch the TV preachers and more than a few of them have twisted and misused script to the point of perverting the text. The poor guy or gal sitting in front of their TV doesn't know the difference.

Religion in America is a multi-billion dollar business and there are sharks in them waters. I can understand why so many folks are confused and turned off. The really tragic part of it, is they also tend to throw the baby out with the bath water.

One of the things I do is teach folks how to study the Bible for themselves so they won't be dependent on what some preacher tells them it says. Yep..that includes me as well. Christian folks need to be "self feeders" so they can distinguish between truth and rot and not fall victum to the sharks and charlatans that abound in American religion.

[AmBraCol]

Yeah, what Charles said - only expand it world wide. There are those who seek the truth and then there are those who seek to enrich themselves from religion. Down here we have the same problems with opportunistic people who merely seek to get money from others - especially on TV. I also teach folks to read and think for themselves - the problem being that humankind tends to be lazy and prefers to be spoon fed rather than making the effort to feed on their own.

As for "textual criticism" - remarking that the texts used by the KJV team to translate the Bible were not as reliable as those we have now - that's merely an observation of the obvious. The vast number of texts that have come to light over the past 400 years are amazing. The Bible continues to be the best documented ancient text on earth - by a HUGE margin. The reason folks question it and try to find fault with it is that if it IS true it demands a response from us. So folks would rather try to discredit it ANYWAY they can (and they do so dishonestly) so that they can go their merry way unhampered by the troubling words spoken by Jesus the Christ.

[Charles]

" The vast number of texts that have come to light over the past 400 years are amazing. The Bible continues to be the best documented ancient text on earth - by a HUGE margin. The reason folks question it and try to find fault with it is that if it IS true it demands a response from us. So folks would rather try to discredit it ANYWAY they can (and they do so dishonestly) so that they can go their merry way unhampered by the troubling words spoken by Jesus the Christ.".... Paul

Of the 40 odd extant Greek plays, we have no more than half of them in the original Greek. We only know the rest from later Latin translations.

It amazes me when some folks "dis" the Bible, because they don't think the documents are reliable, when as Paul said, the Bible is indeed the best document acncient text on earth by a very large margine.

This issue of whether or not I could submit my life to the Bible was the first question I had to answer as a young/new Christian. I read the book by F.F. Bruce, "Are The New Testament Documents Reliable?" and that settled the issue for me.

Folks who take the Bible seriously and reliable are on the right side of scholarship. Some folks think a person has to be some sort of intellectual goof to place serious stock in the Bible..well that notion taint true and tell me the folks who say that have never done any serious study of the matter.

[ScottT]

I think a lot of folks get into trouble by reading parts of the Bible and taking what suits them from it and disregard the rest. You kinda have to accept the whole thing in my eyes. No, I am not a literalist, but the stories, even those which may not be literally true or physically proveable, are there to impart something and should not be disregarded.

Of course, you already know that I have my failings in this regard, and so I don't speak as a teacher, but rather as a student.

[JReed]

You all are right the KJV isn't as up todate translation and there are better ones out there and I have read the NIV. But as I said I grew up with the KJV and reading it is like hanging out with an old friend.

[C. Cash]

Good comments all around fellas. I enjoy listening to Dr. Stanley, Rick Warren, Charles Swindoll is my absolute favorite as well as Billy Graham. Most TV Evangelists can be spotted for what they are very quickly and it is sad that so many are in there for the money. The new trend towards combining the Gospel with Success(ie Wealth) is so disappointing. Let's see, the people who brought the Gospel to me were half starved, harrassed, murdered, crucified, put on poles and burned as torches to light the Roman roads, thrown to the Lions, etc., and I'm guaranteed a good life with loads of cash along the way?

I have always had a great interest in the historical and archaeological evidence of the early church(not as a scholar mind you, just a redneck with a library card ). As I understand it, manuscripts that we have from all points harmonize well together....to a degree which is remarkable and unprecedented. So too the archaelogical record....amazing harmony with what is written in the OT and NT.

[AmBraCol]

You all are right the KJV isn't as up todate translation and there are better ones out there and I have read the NIV. But as I said I grew up with the KJV and reading it is like hanging out with an old friend.

Those of us who grew up "in church" tend to get hung up on "the way things were" - one of which is the "good ol' King James". Down south here we have the equivalent - the Reina Valera. It has been updated occasionally over the centuries, and each time folks whine, holler and complain. The big question is WHY update a "perfectly good" translation?

Well, the RV has an excellent example. In the 1909 version it states that a deacon "must not be bi-lingual". Now, in my collection of translations this is the ONLY version that says anything about such a matter. Careful study shows that the injunction is against "double speaking" - being two faced, wishy washy, unreliable, etc. That phrase HAD to go, especially as more and more folks understand "bi-lingual" to mean the ability to speak two different languages.

English has its own foibles. Just in the past 40 years the word "gay" has gone from meaning "happy, joyful" to being a euphemism for sodomite. There's plenty of reason to translate the Bible anew as the language we use changes. The idea behind translation is to make clear the original meaning of the original texts to people who do not understand the original languages.

[Old Savage]

The meaning of the great majority becomes clear with diligent study.

[Charles]

The meaning of the great majority becomes clear with diligent study.

Amen... With those parameters, 100% of the Bible is clear. All of the material was written with the intent it be understood by the original readers/hearers. It is the gulf in time, history and culture that makes parts of it cryptic. If and when we can get our heads in the same place as the original readers/hearers all of the fog goes away... this is the diligent study component.

Any serious Bible student, can come to a point, when they understand what the passage meant to the orginal readers/hearers.

When folks take the next leap and say... "What does that mean to us today?"...that is where the challenges, problems, conflicts and blessings begin. When we apply Biblical principals to our lives... well, as Tennessee Ernie Ford used to say... "This is where it gets to wet to plow!".

[Poohgyrr]

Glad you're back, and that you had something good to take care of. It is refreshing to read all these posts from about the Country.

[JB]

I'm waiting on the movie.

[Old Shatterhand]

---The difference between 1611 and 2008 English aside, the KJV is really an excellent translation of some very poor manuscripts.

The old Greek texts we have today are far older than those used to translate the KJV, having been discovered since 1611. The vast majority of old text we have now were not known to those folks who translated the KJV.

There was even one of the Corinthinan epistles (IIR) for which they did not have a Greek text. They translated the Vulgate (Latin) text into Greek and from Greek into English.

Considering what this guys have to work with, they did a wonderful job. That said, I don't use the KJV very often because the archaic English bogs me down.

---

There is an interesting discussion among some theologians about which text to use: the traditional text which have been used in the Church the last 1600 years, known as Textus receptus, the accepted text, or a philological critical text, which try to go back to the very primary text. Since the evolution of the text critic studies, there have been a profound search for the pimary versions, and the critic editions of the holy texts have a rather large critical commentary with alternative readings.

But perhaps the tranlators of the KJV or Luther, or why not S:t Hieronymus, the latin translator in the old Roman days, were right: the Church has the real text, and we should put that search for The Really True Primary Text aside? The Greek Orthodox Church has used the same New Testament text through all ages since the Church fathers and the Ecumenical Councils.

But all that is theory, and the differences between all possible readings do not inflict important statements of faith. Which indeed is an interesting fact.

I have read the KJV, and find the language beautiful, much as Shakespeare's English. However, there must be better translation if you try to understand the meaning if the text.

Old Sh.

[rjohns94]

kirkD - yes, that is a great idea. My dad just gave me a copy of his journals over the last 20 some years. I have journaled for the last 10. I hope for my son to get them one day.

[centershot]

That's time well spent, Scott! Glad to see you back again, may God rest yee merry!


centershot