8 ms·
Former Seminary Student here. Not really that significant for religious reasons. This is purely a Historical and Literacy in the Middle Ages finding. King Jame
by baldfat 11y ago
Former Seminary Student here. Not really that significant for religious reasons. This is purely a Historical and Literacy in the Middle Ages finding. King James version is not very important at all in academia for theology besides historical understandings (My main focus and where I was going to do my PhD). We have the original documents that the King James used and we also have MUCH better originals than the KJ.
- Splendor 11y agoSlightly off topic, do you have a favorite translation?
- cheepin 11y agoNot OP, but if you want faithfulness to the original languages, English Standard Version is really good. New American Standard Bible is also good.
- xeromal 11y agoESV is a good version. It does well at being accessibly but remaining true to the meaning of the OG script as much as possible.
- wyclif 11y agoThe ESV has a lot going for it, particularly that it is both modern and embraces the "word-for-word" translation philosophy which I believe is more accurate than the "dynamic equivalence" methodology ("thought for thought" or functional, like the NIV).
- timv 11y ago(Also) Not the OP, but the Holman [http://www.hcsb.org/ http://www.hcsb.org/] has become my translation of choice. As mentioned by other, the NASB and the ESV are also both good choices. I really like the NASB for study, but find the language choices make it a little jarring (compared the ESV or HCSB), so I tend not to use it for regular personal reading.
- giancarlostoro 11y agoNot OP either but: If you want to read the Bible smoothly there's the NLT (New Living Translation) reads very nicely for today's day and age. There's different translations for different purposes, I enjoy reading many of them. If you want to read the New Testament from a different source (most translations use Greek) there is Aramaic New Testament in Plain English (from the Peshitta Script written in Aramaic) which clears up some confusing verses in the New Testament. Such as the famous camel through the eye of a needle becomes a rope passing through the eye of a needle which reads clearer.
- smithkl42 11y agoThe NIV gets a lot of flack for not being terribly accurate, but for a translation that tries to strike a balance between reasonable accuracy and good readability, I like it. It definitely does smooth over a lot of difficulties in the original languages (see, e.g., its indefensible confusing of what exactly the Midianites and Ishmaelites are getting up to in Gen. 37:25-28), but just know that going in.
- baldfat 11y agoOP Here: I have studied 2 years of Greek and Hebrew and some Aramaic. The more I learned of these languages the more I realized how good our own translations are. All the modern translations are good but I do have two recommendations. New Living Translation is the best reading bible. It just is well written in sentence structure and word choices. New Revised Standard is the best "study" translation. To me it has the best "word for word" though I must say my old Hebrew teacher HATES this version's Old Testament version's word choices. (For example NIV translate the Greek word SOMA (flesh) sinful nature, I have an issue with that. In the Old Testament there are similar things that are merely differences in opinion) As a Linux and Open Source (Free Software) person I hate these copyrights so there are a few open license projects that I haven' dug into yet.
- jonah 11y agoIt's such a poor translation, it's unfortunate so many people still hold it as the one. My feeling is that being exposed to the KJV turns away a lot of people who might otherwise be interested in reading the Bible. There are so many others that are more accurate, use modern modern language, and are more accessible at the same time.
- analog31 11y agoAs I understand it, there are sects for whom the supremacy of the KJV is actually a matter of doctrine. If so, then it becomes the truth relative to that particular sect.
- wyclif 11y agoYes, you're talking about the "KJV-Only" movement adopted by some primitive Baptists and other fundamentalist sects. There's a big difference between KJV-onlyism and preferring the KJV over other translations. The former insists something that the KJV translators themselves never did: that the KJV is the only legitimate Bible translation, and specially favoured and preserved by God over other translations.
- cmdkeen 11y agoIt's also ironic because the translation of the bible into people's native tongues from the Vulgate Latin bible was a major part of the Protestant movement in that it exposed a lot of issues in the Vulgate version which enabled the Protestants to attack Catholic doctrine.
- gtk40 11y agoMy church/denomination (A Presbyterian denomination mostly in Scotland, but my congregation is in North America) uses the KJV as the main Bible in the pulpit. Part of this is to have a standard translation throughout the churches (while the pastor uses other translations to clarify) and partly conviction, without being KJV-only. We prefer the Byzantine tradition manuscripts to the Alexandrian tradition. The KJV is a good translation mainly based on the Byzantine tradition, with some more sticky cases. There isn't as much work being done with the Byzantine tradition these days, as most editions being published, whether evangelical or mainline, use the Alexandrian tradition texts primarily.
- jdnier 11y agoBut significant for literary reasons, at least. The KJV is deeply interwoven into much of English literature.
- wyclif 11y agoActually, the King James Bible was produced in the Early Modern period (c. 1611), not the Middle Ages.
- baldfat 11y agoSorry you are 100% correct. My defense it was late at night :(