Subject: NIV bible |
Bible Note: Ken John - I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed in you for having not responded to the points I tried to make in my post, but instead to quote a portion of it to which you say, without saying why, you take exception. One can only conclude that you missed the points of the post, or ignored them, or simply that you don't understand them. Surely you must not think me ignorant of the merits of the King James Bible or of its vast influence on Western thought. Its influence on both the clergy and laity has been enormous, and this influence has spread far beyond the doors of the church and woven its way into the political, literary and cultural fabric for nearly four centuries. Ken John, I do not view lightly the worth and importance of the King James Bible, this monumental work that justly has been called "the noblest monument to English prose." I have written on the pages of this Forum a number of posts in praise of the King James Bible, if you care to view them. ...... The Latin Vulgate was for centuries one of the most respected and authoritative translations of God's word, but who reads it today? Why don't they read it? Do you read it? Why not? Obviously on account of a language barrier, isn't this true? Well, my friend, time and change have taken their toll on the 400-year-old translation known as the Authorized, or King James Version. And what is language and of what use is it if is not a human contrivance, a tool, with which to communicate thought clearly and accurately? The translators of the King James Bible wrote the following words in their Preface, "The Translators to the Reader" to the 1611 Edition: "But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, "Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to me." Now, 400 years later, so profound and dynamic have been the changes in English vocabulary, grammar, and other syntatic rules of the language that to the generations growing up before us now, the King James Version is, in no small measure, essentially being "kept close in an unknown tongue," as the KJV translators put it. ...... Ken John, the King James Version is NOT the word of God. It is a translation, and a good one, of some ancient manuscripts, which also were not the word of God. They were copied from other manuscripts which are called autographs, which are the original documents penned by the men of God who were guided by the Spirit of God to write them. These -- the autographs -- THEY were the word of God. .... There have been claims made and continue to be made that somehow the King James translators were divinely inspired in much the same manner as the authors of the original autographs were inspired. Surely had these august scholars who effected the translation of this version felt that they were so inspired, they would have left us with some indication of it. The biblical writers certainly did. But throughout their long preface in the 1611 priniting of the Authorized Version, there is no indication whatever that these learned men ever had the slightest notion they or their translation might have been divinely inspired. They, in fact, did not make a new or original translation. As they state plainly in their Preface, their aim and purpose in rendering what is now called the Authorized or King James Version was this: "Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better." ...... The King James Bible was a masterpiece, a literary gem, in 1611 and it remains one still. This is not the issue. The issue is this: Do modern scholars who have given us a number of translations that are transparent of the ancient biblical texts possess language skills and personal integrity that in all likelihood are comparable to those of the translators of 1611 who toiled to give the world the Authorized Version? There is no earthly reason to believe that modern scholars are not as trustworthy as the scholars of 400 years ago. And it is ridiculous to hatch up the myth, or to believe it, that they are part of some sort of conspiracy. ...... Many more manuscrips are extant now than in 16ll. Much more has been learned about Bible times and languages than was known in 1611. And, finally, I believe it should be noted that the King James Version was written in the fresh, contemporary language of its day. Why should we not avail ourselves of a responsible translation of God's word that is written in language that is fresh and contemporary in ours? It's noteworthy that even the most avid promoters of "King James Only" don't travel by horse and buggy or light their homes with oil lamps or weave their own clothing. --Hank |