11,143
edits
The King James Version of the Bible: Difference between revisions
→What is the best Bible translation?
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
A Wycliffe Bible translator once told me that "the only thing worse than no scripture in your own language is badly translated scripture.” That is exactly what [[Cloverdale Bibleway|Cloverdale Bible Way]] has done and it is a sin! | A Wycliffe Bible translator once told me that "the only thing worse than no scripture in your own language is badly translated scripture.” That is exactly what [[Cloverdale Bibleway|Cloverdale Bible Way]] has done and it is a sin! | ||
This video is by a Canadian scholar, Wesley Huff, who is a friend of BelieveTheSign: | |||
<youtube>https://youtu.be/nlqh43ozuxs</youtube> | |||
=Original Language of the New Testament= | =Original Language of the New Testament= | ||
| Line 66: | Line 70: | ||
:''In the studying of the Scripture, I have been accused, and do a great deal of typology. Which typology is typing the Old with the New. I'll tell you why I do that. It's because of this. Maybe sometimes the--the great words that scholars and so forth try to give the Bible Its--Its terms or pronouncing... I'm satisfied to take the King James for mine. It's waved the storms longer than any translation yet, and I just believe it that way.''<ref>53-0325 ISRAEL.AND.THE.CHURCH.1_ JEFFERSONVILLE.IN</ref> | :''In the studying of the Scripture, I have been accused, and do a great deal of typology. Which typology is typing the Old with the New. I'll tell you why I do that. It's because of this. Maybe sometimes the--the great words that scholars and so forth try to give the Bible Its--Its terms or pronouncing... I'm satisfied to take the King James for mine. It's waved the storms longer than any translation yet, and I just believe it that way.''<ref>53-0325 ISRAEL.AND.THE.CHURCH.1_ JEFFERSONVILLE.IN</ref> | ||
He also believed there were errors in the KJV: | |||
:''“And we noticed what that woman said. She turned with startled eyes, and she said, ‘Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.’” Now, that… Really, in the King James is mistranslated.<ref>William Branham, 62-0726 - A Testimony Upon The Sea, para. 46</ref> | |||
Though William Branham did preach and quote primarily from the King James Version, '''he never claimed the King James Version was the only real Bible''', and in fact, used several different versions, including the Darby Translation, and the Amplified Bible. His quote above simply states that he was satisfied to keep the KJV, because it had stood the test of time. That is a personal preference, and, especially in 1953 when he said it, an understandable position. Regardless, the Bible itself did not need vindicating, by William Branham or anyone else. Christians have always, and will always, believe the original manuscripts to be the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. Therefore, any faithful translation into English is, by definition, also the Word of God. So what constitutes a faithful translation? | Though William Branham did preach and quote primarily from the King James Version, '''he never claimed the King James Version was the only real Bible''', and in fact, used several different versions, including the Darby Translation, and the Amplified Bible. His quote above simply states that he was satisfied to keep the KJV, because it had stood the test of time. That is a personal preference, and, especially in 1953 when he said it, an understandable position. Regardless, the Bible itself did not need vindicating, by William Branham or anyone else. Christians have always, and will always, believe the original manuscripts to be the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God. Therefore, any faithful translation into English is, by definition, also the Word of God. So what constitutes a faithful translation? | ||
There are a number of translations available today, that are not only much clearer to read, but also more faithful to the original texts than the King James Version. | There are a number of translations available today, that are not only much clearer to read, but also more faithful to the original texts than the King James Version. | ||
=What is the best Bible translation?= | =What is the best Bible translation?= | ||
| Line 76: | Line 84: | ||
Translations may be located anywhere between the two poles of formal equivalence (word for word) and dynamic equivalence (thought for thought). Click on the chart to the left to get an understanding of where various translation lie. | Translations may be located anywhere between the two poles of formal equivalence (word for word) and dynamic equivalence (thought for thought). Click on the chart to the left to get an understanding of where various translation lie. | ||
A strictly literal translation would be largely unintelligible, but | A strictly literal translation would be largely unintelligible, but formal equivalence translations, such as the NASB, ESV and KJV, have tended to translate sentence structures and figures of speech literally. These are usually perceived as intelligible and often normal, if sometimes a bit unusual for English. Dynamic equivalence (NLT, GNT) makes little if any attempt to preserve original sentence structure, but seeks to state the meaning of the text in natural contemporary idiom. Original metaphors may be retained if their meaning is clear to a contemporary readership. Formal equivalence versions are convenient for deeper study, dynamic equivalence for day to day reading. There are also some translations that try to strike a balance between the two types of translations. The NIV and NET would be included in this group. Beyond dynamic equivalence translations are the paraphrased versions which aren't direct translations but can still be useful for everyday reading if you understand their limitations (the Message Bible is an example).<ref>Roger A. Bullard, “Bible Translations,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 183.</ref> | ||
It is interesting that the King James translators faced all the same resurrected issues that modern translations are faced with. There were those, for instance, who felt that a new translation implied that the church had been without the Word of God until then. In the preface already quoted the translators report their critics’ concerns. | It is interesting that the King James translators faced all the same resurrected issues that modern translations are faced with. There were those, for instance, who felt that a new translation implied that the church had been without the Word of God until then. In the preface already quoted the translators report their critics’ concerns. | ||