3 ms·

I've only ever read KJV and haven't heard of the others. Is the downside that KJV is 1600s English? That particular line: KJV: For I know that in me (that is,

I've only ever read KJV and haven't heard of the others. Is the downside that KJV is 1600s English? That particular line: KJV: For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. NRSV: For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. NIV: For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. So KJV and NRSV agree.

rsynnott 2mo ago
One potential issue is that some English words have changed meaning since it was written, and sometimes in extremely confusing or misleading ways. For instance 'convenient' and 'prevent' used to have radically different meanings.
- frollogaston 2mo ago
  "Convenient" isn't that different, meant "fitting" back then
  - rsynnott 2mo ago
    I mean I think that's _very_ different. It is _fitting_ to do good works, but it is _convenient_ not to bother.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
KPGv2 2mo ago
The NIV has as a stated goal to preserve the "infallibility" of the Bible, which means their translation opts for internal consistency over accuracy. I personally think it's the least trustworthy translation, a product specifically of the American evangelical movement in the Boomer heyday. The generation that really hates. The one that supercharged the anti-abortion movement as a direct response to the Supreme Court striking down racial discrimination in (private) schools that receive taxpayer monies. This is all the same group. Bin the NIV.
- psd1 2mo ago
  Meh, the text isn't setting the attitude -hence, people railing against homosexuality while wearing polycotton slacks. The issue is susceptibility to dogma, which is an attack vector. An attacker uses this to gain root, then they can pivot by editing the creed.
  - paxcoder 2mo ago
    [dead]
- paxcoder 2mo ago
  [dead]
n0dose 2mo ago
The downside is it was translated in the 1600s with the tools, knowledge and manuscripts available to them at the time. We just have a lot more now.
jhbadger 2mo ago
Also there are things that are just bad translations even for the era -- the KJV mentions unicorns 9 times, often in weird comparisons like "the strength of a unicorn" -- whatever the Hebrew original meant (many scholars think it was referring to wild cattle known as aurochs), it certainly didn't mean a unicorn out of Western mythology.

rsynnott 2mo ago

One potential issue is that some English words have changed meaning since it was written, and sometimes in extremely confusing or misleading ways. For instance 'convenient' and 'prevent' used to have radically different meanings.

frollogaston 2mo ago
"Convenient" isn't that different, meant "fitting" back then
- rsynnott 2mo ago
  I mean I think that's _very_ different. It is _fitting_ to do good works, but it is _convenient_ not to bother.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

KPGv2 2mo ago

The NIV has as a stated goal to preserve the "infallibility" of the Bible, which means their translation opts for internal consistency over accuracy. I personally think it's the least trustworthy translation, a product specifically of the American evangelical movement in the Boomer heyday. The generation that really hates. The one that supercharged the anti-abortion movement as a direct response to the Supreme Court striking down racial discrimination in (private) schools that receive taxpayer monies. This is all the same group. Bin the NIV.

psd1 2mo ago
Meh, the text isn't setting the attitude -hence, people railing against homosexuality while wearing polycotton slacks. The issue is susceptibility to dogma, which is an attack vector. An attacker uses this to gain root, then they can pivot by editing the creed.
- paxcoder 2mo ago
  [dead]
paxcoder 2mo ago
[dead]

n0dose 2mo ago

The downside is it was translated in the 1600s with the tools, knowledge and manuscripts available to them at the time. We just have a lot more now.

jhbadger 2mo ago

Also there are things that are just bad translations even for the era -- the KJV mentions unicorns 9 times, often in weird comparisons like "the strength of a unicorn" -- whatever the Hebrew original meant (many scholars think it was referring to wild cattle known as aurochs), it certainly didn't mean a unicorn out of Western mythology.