Something that I wanted to discuss yesterday, and it slipped my mind is Bible translations. Now, I don't know either Greek or Hebrew, but these are the original languages of the Bible. Latin is not, and as we all said in Latin class, "Latin is a dead language, dead as it can be. It killed off all the Romans, and now it's killing me." My point is that I am forced as probably most of you, to rely on my pastor who knows these languages.
So, the King James Version (KJV) is a fairly good translation. Considering the date it was translated, and the limited sourcing of original materials, one can only think that the Holy Spirit was guiding the translators. It gets most of the main points correct. Its language is archaic and often hard to read, especially for our young people, who aren't exposed to Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, or Shakespeare. In the early 90s, I was convinced to purchase a New International Version translation in the Oxford Study Bible, which included the Apocrypha. This was all the rage in the early at the time. However, this translation is heavily influenced by Calvinist theology, and one finds too many places where one has to mark through and put a better translation above the marked language. The English Standard Version, which claims to be a modern update of the original KJV misses the mark in that it translates the "seed" of Adam as "offspring." This is an attempt to erase Christianity.
There are other translations and paraphrases of Holy Scripture. Some are better than others. But I have settled on the New King James Version, which preserves the all-important "seed" of Adam, while giving us a more readable Bible that maintains the majesty of the original KJV.
I attended Bible college many moons ago. Think the early 80's. At that time, I did some investigating and determined that the best translation is the original KJV.
ReplyDeleteI based it upon the source materials used, and the members who did the actual translating. One version that I have friends who like is the NIV. The problem is that when I tell them to find certain passages, mostly dealing with the Trinity, the NIV skips them.
I am speaking of several verses, but just one is
1 John 5:7-8. While there are some modern translations that include some verses in footnotes, with shaky explanations such as the verse is elsewhere in the Bible or in the book that it was omitted from.
This is a partial list showing the Wikipedia list and a few of their thoughts, but I find it to be just as faulty as the others. I believe that the only true Word of God is in the original texts and languages, but that the manuscripts used for the KJV Bible are the better ones.
There is of course one other reason that I like the KJV, and that is the beauty and majesty of the phrasing and the way it shows God as being the Shekinah Glory for all who believe. This was represented by the pillar of clouds and the pillar of fire that led the Jews during the wandering years.
Sorry I forgot to post this.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations#:~:text=Lists%20of%20%22missing%22%20verses%20and,are%20not%20all%20the%20same.
Pigpen51, Thanks for commenting and providing some interesting details. I agree that the KJV got it right in 99.9% of cases. And yes, the pillar of fire by night and pillar of smoke by day was God Himself (in the form of the Second Person of the Trinity) leading the people of Israel out of Egypt to the promised land. I see Exodus as not only a history of the Israelites, but every mans story. For it is always God who calls us, leads us by the hand out of metaphorical Egypts to Himself.
ReplyDeleteGood comment.
Wade