4 ms·

I think for some the issue is that if you consider the Bible to be absolute and without error, then the logical conclusion is that the first available translati

by elihu 7y ago

I think for some the issue is that if you consider the Bible to be absolute and without error, then the logical conclusion is that the first available translation is the right one and you can't have others that conflict. If, say, NIV conflicts with KJV in some way, then if said that the NIV was right it means the KJV is wrong, and for some people that's yanking out a key pillar of their epistemology. Another aspect of it is that the modern translations are all copyrighted, whereas KJV is public domain. One criticism I've come across of modern translations is that sometimes they use convoluted ways of saying something just because they don't want to be accused of plagiarizing some other modern translations, and there are only so many ways to write the same sentence. I'm not sure if that's a real issue that Bible translators actually worry about, but it's at least plausible.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> I think for some the issue is that if you consider the Bible to be absolute and without error, then the logical conclusion is that the first available translation is the right one and you can't have others that conflict. If you considered that the Bible as originally revealed was absolute and without error, that would absolutely not demand the conclusion that the first translation into your language from intermediate texts was therefore “the right one”. In fact, it would (given the inherent act of interpretation in translation) lead to suspicion of any translation from the original (see Islam and translations of the Quran.)
- elihu 7y ago
  Sure, you can believe that the original text was correct but the KJV is not. I guess what I meant by "The Bible" is "The Bible in English". As a practical matter, few people know the Greek and Latin and Aramaic of the original texts, so to question the validity of the English Bible is to question the version they know and trust, that is accessible to them. If you question KJV, that opens up some other questions: if the KJV is wrong, which translation is right? Is any translation right? It seems like a hard question for which no answer is arbitrary and unclear and any wrong answer could have unknown bad consequences, and many of these people believe strongly that humans are very fallible when it comes to moral and religious discernment. One defense against making the wrong decision is to make no decision, and simply to abide by the traditions of your upbringing. Personally, I don't think Christianity is such a weak system of thought that it all comes crumbling down if you yank out the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture (such as it is available to them), but I can sympathize with those who don't want to try it and find out.
- irrational 7y ago
  >If you considered that the Bible as originally revealed was absolute and without error I've never understood how anyone could believe this. Every single book of the Bible has lots of ancient versions, none of which are exactly the same as any other.
freedomben 7y ago
Most of the serious Christian apologists these days don't have that kind of faith in the KJV, but rather on the originals as first written by the authors. In fact they don't consider the KJV to be anywhere near the best since much earlier manuscripts have been found since the KJV was translated. William Lane Craig writes about a lot of this in his books. I highly recommend his book "reasonable faith" for a look at the most scholarly philosophical apologetics (from a Christian view). Just don't accept his explanations of atheist thought because it's a giant straw man. For atheist thought go with David Kyle Johnson for philosophy, Bart Ehrman for biblical history, and Richard Dawkins for science. Sam harris does a ton of philosophy too which is good, just not my favorite.

by elihu 7y ago

dragonwriter 7y ago

> I think for some the issue is that if you consider the Bible to be absolute and without error, then the logical conclusion is that the first available translation is the right one and you can't have others that conflict. If you considered that the Bible as originally revealed was absolute and without error, that would absolutely not demand the conclusion that the first translation into your language from intermediate texts was therefore “the right one”. In fact, it would (given the inherent act of interpretation in translation) lead to suspicion of any translation from the original (see Islam and translations of the Quran.)

elihu 7y ago
Sure, you can believe that the original text was correct but the KJV is not. I guess what I meant by "The Bible" is "The Bible in English". As a practical matter, few people know the Greek and Latin and Aramaic of the original texts, so to question the validity of the English Bible is to question the version they know and trust, that is accessible to them. If you question KJV, that opens up some other questions: if the KJV is wrong, which translation is right? Is any translation right? It seems like a hard question for which no answer is arbitrary and unclear and any wrong answer could have unknown bad consequences, and many of these people believe strongly that humans are very fallible when it comes to moral and religious discernment. One defense against making the wrong decision is to make no decision, and simply to abide by the traditions of your upbringing. Personally, I don't think Christianity is such a weak system of thought that it all comes crumbling down if you yank out the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture (such as it is available to them), but I can sympathize with those who don't want to try it and find out.
irrational 7y ago
>If you considered that the Bible as originally revealed was absolute and without error I've never understood how anyone could believe this. Every single book of the Bible has lots of ancient versions, none of which are exactly the same as any other.

freedomben 7y ago

Most of the serious Christian apologists these days don't have that kind of faith in the KJV, but rather on the originals as first written by the authors. In fact they don't consider the KJV to be anywhere near the best since much earlier manuscripts have been found since the KJV was translated. William Lane Craig writes about a lot of this in his books. I highly recommend his book "reasonable faith" for a look at the most scholarly philosophical apologetics (from a Christian view). Just don't accept his explanations of atheist thought because it's a giant straw man. For atheist thought go with David Kyle Johnson for philosophy, Bart Ehrman for biblical history, and Richard Dawkins for science. Sam harris does a ton of philosophy too which is good, just not my favorite.