King James Vs Other Translations

[Darcy88]

So which Biblical translation do you prefer? I'm referring specifically to the King James Version compared to more modern ones, such as the New International Version. I find reading the KJV with its more archaic language to be a much different experience than reading the NIV. In some ways the KJV seems more hallowed but in others less easily relatable. Knowing the influence its exerted on English literature, on such writers as Melville and Whitman, reading it can feel like a sort of extra-temporal communal experience, connecting you in some way to those writers and individuals who soaked up its verses in the past. And yet I find that it speaks less directly to me than do the more modern translations, that its archaic aspects to some degree distract me from the story and message.

I guess I'm not sure which I ultimately prefer. Any thoughts?

[YesNo]

I have only read parts of the Bible, so I probably shouldn't be making recommendations, but I have found the Book of J an interesting translation of what Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg believe to be the part that J (Bathsheba?) wrote. But I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know whether this is a good translation or not.

In general, for the Tanakh (Old Testament) portion, I would choose the Jewish Study Bible or something that a Jewish group accepted. For the Christian New Testament, there is the Jerusalem Bible which provides a commentary from a Catholic perspective.

I've heard from some of Bloom's commentary that William Tyndale's translation from which part of the KJB is derived is worth reading, but I have not done so.

[Darcy88]

I have only read parts of the Bible, so I probably shouldn't be making recommendations, but I have found the Book of J an interesting translation of what Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg believe to be the part that J (Bathsheba?) wrote. But I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know whether this is a good translation or not.

In general, for the Tanakh (Old Testament) portion, I would choose the Jewish Study Bible or something that a Jewish group accepted. For the Christian New Testament, there is the Jerusalem Bible which provides a commentary from a Catholic perspective.

I've heard from some of Bloom's commentary that William Tyndale's translation from which part of the KJB is derived is worth reading, but I have not done so.

I've long been interested in the Tyndale version as well. The story of his life and work at translating the bible is fascinating. Wikipedia however states that one estimate places the KJV as about 80% drawn from Tyndale's translation, so it would seem the difference may not be all that great.

[L.M. The Third]

I wonder if they publish Tyndale versions with updated spelling, since I'm pretty sure I've read published excerpts of it with "olde" spelling. Oh, and Darcy88, if you're interested in Tyndale and ever get the chance there's a good film on him called "God's Outlaw".

A few years ago I looked through a book called "Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution" by Bobrick Benson that looked quite good. I'm thinking of reading it in full for the 400th anniversary of the KJV.

If you're ever interested in a comparison of the KJV and modern versions from a historical and theological position, I would recommend "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" by Dr. B. G. Wilkinson.

And, if it seems like I'm fond of the KJV, it's because I certainly am. That's not to say that I'm a "KJV-only" believer. Such a narrow belief is founded on gross ignorance. (Those who argue with credibility for the reliability of the KJV understand it's not about that version versus all others - it's about manuscript streams.) I've grown up on the KJV and love its language, which I find much easier to memorize than updated language. You also mention its influence on literature, and if you're reading the Bible to better understand literature I would certainly recommend the KJV which has influenced the language, metaphor and understanding of most Biblically-influenced authors.

I'm afraid I can't give much help on finding its archaic aspects (I assume you mean language) distracting, except that immersing yourself in it will likely endure it to you.

[Lokasenna]

The standard text for medievalists is the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome. It's useful, though I'll admit I prefer the KJV on aesthetic grounds...

[Vonny]

I only bother with KJV, myself. I sure don't want a new-age slant on my bible, such as NIV.

To me, other versions such as Catholic ones sound so anemic - the 23rd Psalm, for instance.

[togre]

Bible translations are a difficult mixture of science and art. The goal is always to convey the meaning from the original language to the receptor language. This seems easy, right? Just find out what the words mean and swap! But that is an oversimplification of the differences of languages. Different words have different range of meanings, there are different idioms and so on. So much so, that every act of translation is in part an act of interpretation. Now a good translation will try to retain as much of the original meaning as possible, avoid importing any new meaning and produce a product that is smooth, understandable and beautiful in the new language. Obviously these are competing goals and impossible to achieve perfectly. Add to that the fact language changes constants (slowly, yes, but constantly) and you see why there are so many translations of the Bible.

Regarding the KJV--I have experience in Biblical Greek and Hebrew and find it to be a faithful translation of the original texts. It does have beautiful language which is familiar due to the vast number of allusions in conversation and literature. That being said, it has some difficulties. It's language is dated, using words and expressions that are very difficult to understand--sometimes so much so as to convey the opposite meaning to the modern ear that they intend to convey. Further, when it was produced it endeavored to stay very close to the words and grammar of the original languages. This lead to expressions that always were wooden and foreign to English. Finally, the KJV used the best Greek and Hebrew texts that were available. 99+% of the time that's fine. However, as the manuscript evidence for the Old and New Testament continue to grow, there are a few places where the Greek and Hebrew translated was different than the original Greek and Hebrew (as best as we can determine). So the KJV has strengths and weaknesses. If you can understand I would have no concerns about you reading it. However I would recommend a different translation if you are brand new to the Bible.

Which translation? Well, there are a large number that are faithful. The NIV is a new standard. In its efforts to speak better English there is more interpreting that takes place. By and large there is little imported into the text, but in a few places I would question their decisions. Note: The NIV has been recently updated. The older version is sometimes referred to as the NIV84, the new as the NIV2011 or NIV11. The NIV11 is more interpretive. I would still recommend it, but there are more difficulties.

If you want a more literal one, the NASB is woodenly literal. Good for study, but more difficult for devotional reading.

If you want to learn about a particular translation, there should be a note or foreword by the translating committee in the front. It should let you know their methodology and goals in their translation.

Ultimately it is not easy to translate. There are different opinions on what a "faithful" translation truly is. I'd be happy to discuss this more, but I don't want to derail a thread or bore you if this isn't germane to your question.

[stephofthenight]

I read the HCSB or the Holman Christian Standard Bible- www.bible.cc is a great resource as far as translations. it shows you up to 4 side by side. and list the word for word translations and the word for thought ones. Personaly I only read word for word translations. im not a KJV fan I'll read the NKJV- A lot of your "old" words where placed by king james such as your thous and thee's that was to appeal for the modern time and language. I prefer something tailored to my generation it helps me apply it better in my life- because Thee and Thou dont fit into my life. where as modern language helps me feel better connected and more likely to enjoy and embrace the Word of God on a constant basis. I can spend more time digging deeper into the context and word studys rather than with a dictionary trying to look up a word in modern language.

[YesNo]

I remember reading some commentary by Eknath Easwaran, who translated the Bhagavad Gita into English, where he wrote that translating a religious text into another language is just an intellectual exercise, but "translating" that text into one's own life is what is important to do. That "translation" is then "read" by others who live close to that person.

That seems to make sense to me. I think that is why I prefer reading commentaries on religious texts rather than just the texts themselves. These commentaries go line by line through the text and explain it. That way I get not only the original text, but also another person's translation of it into their life as reflected in their commentary on it.

[L.M. The Third]

The standard text for medievalists is the Douay-Rheims Bible, which is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate of St Jerome. It's useful, though I'll admit I prefer the KJV on aesthetic grounds...

Which Douay edition do you use?

My understanding is that what is generally known as the Douay-Rheims today has been radically revised from what was first published in 1582 (New Testament) and 1609 (Old Testament); and that many Bibles have gone under that name which were founded on on revision undertaken by Bishop Challoner from 1749-1752, which, according to Cardinal Newman "almost amounted to a new translation". And Newman added, "In nearly every case, Challoner's changes took the form approximating to the Authorized Version."

[Lokasenna]

Which Douay edition do you use?

My understanding is that what is generally known as the Douay-Rheims today has been radically revised from what was first published in 1582 (New Testament) and 1609 (Old Testament); and that many Bibles have gone under that name which were founded on on revision undertaken by Bishop Challoner from 1749-1752, which, according to Cardinal Newman "almost amounted to a new translation". And Newman added, "In nearly every case, Challoner's changes took the form approximating to the Authorized Version."

We use the 1582/1609 version - it is the most literal translation of the Latin original.

[BlackCat]

I'm Catholic and we have a KJV of our own called the Douay Rheim version. However I read the New American Translation. I don't

[YesNo]

Brian Moynahan has a good history of the issues surrounding the early translations of the Bible into English called God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More, and the Writing of the English Bible---A Story of Martyrdom and Betrayal.

From what I recall, the controversy centered around the way one translated a couple of Greek words which I think were "eclesia" and "presbyter" into English. Did "eclesia" mean "church" or "congregation" and did "presbyter" mean "bishop" or "elder"? In other words, did the translation support the authority of the Catholic church or not.

Tyndale was ultimately charged with heresy and burnt at the stake for his translation. I hear he may have been strangled prior to the burning, but, if I recall correctly, Moynahan claimed the strangling did not actually kill him prior to the burning. I'd have to check that detail.

[irishpixieb]

I like New American. Haha sorry! Catholic!

[Vladimir777]

I'm a first-time Bible reader myself, and about to complete the King James Old Testament (20 pages left; just finished the Book of Jonah). I tend to agree with the OP--reading the KJV is a somewhat hallowing experience, because the consistency of the elevated, poetic language throughout the entire thing brings it an almost otherworldly quality. I'm aware that the original texts are probably written in many different styles, since they were composed centuries apart, but in the unified text of the King James, I can see how the Bible has taken on such an immense stature in Western civilization.

However, there are indeed parts that are confusing. Some of the books I've had the most problems with so far are these: Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Job. Oh, and Song of Solomon. I found the King James version of Solomon to be rather confusing, but I liked it nonetheless. Sometimes after reading it for hours, it can be hard to follow, but a lot of times I also find plenty of hilarity in the KJV: I love whenever people "gird their loins with sackcloth." :rofl: Plenty of other funny stuff in there too. And what is the deal with God trying to kill Moses randomly in one part of Exodus for absolutely no reason?

I'd love to read some of the better books (the Pentateuch, Sammuel-Kings, Eccleasiastes, Song of Solomon, Job, and Psalms) in multiple translations so I can get better understanding of them and to compare.

I wish there was more Bible discussion on this board as it pertains to the literary quality of the book. I see that it was started with a few segments but seems to have died out. I'd love to discuss it with you guys!

[Climacus]

So which Biblical translation do you prefer? I'm referring specifically to the King James Version compared to more modern ones, such as the New International Version. I find reading the KJV with its more archaic language to be a much different experience than reading the NIV. In some ways the KJV seems more hallowed but in others less easily relatable. Knowing the influence its exerted on English literature, on such writers as Melville and Whitman, reading it can feel like a sort of extra-temporal communal experience, connecting you in some way to those writers and individuals who soaked up its verses in the past. And yet I find that it speaks less directly to me than do the more modern translations, that its archaic aspects to some degree distract me from the story and message.

I guess I'm not sure which I ultimately prefer. Any thoughts?

It depends what you're tying to get out of the Bible. The KJV is still the most beautiful I think, though it has been superseded as a translation. A large part of the beauty is attributable to the fact that it is so old, from the seventeenth century. The natural development of language is from the poetic to the prosaic. So archaic prose is often more beautiful.

If you want to understand what the original authors meant, then there are a number of considerations to mull over. There are, simply put, two sorts of modern translations: word-for-word (formal equivalence) and thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence). You can think of the former as translations and the latter as commentaries. Some translations, like the NIV, intermix the two and are thus - in my view - bloody useless. (For you never know what you're getting.) So, for word-for-word translations, check out the ESV and NKJV. For thought-for-thought, the NEB and NLT are good. Why not pick up something like this (httphttp://www.amazon.com/Essential-Evangelical-Parallel-Bible-Kohlenberger/dp/0195281802/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323988687&sr=1-3)? (Just ignore the ghastly MSG).

[lawpark]

NSRV! just because it is widely used in US University's humanities courses

[Rozzy]

The Septuagint is my Bible of choice as it is the oldest known to exist.
There are few choices to choose from concerning the Septuagint, there is the "Brentons Septuagint" and the "Thompsons Septuagint".
The Brentons is only available with the OT and the Intertestamental books, Thompson did translate both the OT and NT but the NT is real scarce today.
The Thompson OT does not contain all 54 books of The Septuagint like the Brentons but the short canon it has (39 books) is that of the Septuagint.

The Literal Concordant Version is the NT of The Septuagint and is readily available. Being a literal copy it will read "age" where a KJV or similar modern version will read "eternal" or "everlasting". Age is the correct translation but it is also controversial to those who do not like its implications.

There is a new translation out being presented as a Septuagint called "The NETS Version", it does not even resemble a real Septuagint, it is a version published with the intent of bringing the Septuagint as close to the Masoretic text as possible. I would not take one if they give it out for free.

[mike thomas]

From what I read in this section you guys have never scrutinised the frontispiece to the KJAV. If you had used your eyes you might have considered your words with more care.

Seeing is believing? Ask Thomas the skulk (http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible):

Have a really good look folks.

[Ozy]

I prefer the New American myself because it's pretty straightforward.

[Bad Grass]

KJV all the way. I was raised with it, understand it and love it. But I will admit, I am no scholar. I feel some things will never be written correctly in any translation. Word for word, yes. Meaning for meaning, no. But the archaic nature of the book is just fine with me.

[MANICHAEAN]

In terms of the pure beauty of its word craft, the King James version every time.

[Darcy88]

I still don't favor the King James Version. I read an old translation of Plutarch, the same one Shakespeare is said to have used, and I felt the same distance, the same estrangement from the text due to the archaic language.

[Bad Grass]

To me, archaic is closer. There is something about the foundation of our language that is more beautiful and simply put.

[Darcy88]

To me, archaic is closer. There is something about the foundation of our language that is more beautiful and simply put.

I am in a small minority it seems but I really am not a fan of the King James. I just got a nice brand new Bible replete with maps and foot-notes that is an English Standard Version translation. I am very happy with it.

[Bad Grass]

O, how I miss those maps.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

King James all the way. Old school is good school. :)

[Darcy88]

I recently got an English Standard Version bible. Its a student version, whatever that means. Its full of maps and non-biased, non-denominational/theological footnotes that are epically long and detailed. I love it. I love it a lot. The translation is readable, readability being the only standard I have to judge it by. It makes reading the bible a much better experience, just like the Landmark editions of the ancient historians like Herodotus and Thucydides make reading ancient history that much smoother.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I haven't had much experience with the KJV other than a few snippets here and there when I happen to find one on the back of a pew when visiting a church for a wedding.
Growing up Christian/ Catholic, per my mother's directive, (dad was a relenting agnostic Methodist) the Bibles of choice were Catholic versions. The old family bible is the "Family Rosary Edition of the Catholic Bible" The Catholic Press Chicago c 1953.
It is a wonderful book filled with images of paintings by the Rennaisance masters.
Since then I had purchased a copy of the "New American Bible - St. Joseph Edition" several years ago. My library also includes the "Jerome Biblical Commentary", a great supplement with more in depth analysis of the text than space allows for footnotes found in bibles.

[mal4mac]

I keep on meaning to read The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes - A Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter, but I prefer other sources of wisdom, so it'll have to wait. The Hellenistic Philosophers by A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley is a higher priority.

[Dark Star]

The KJV is nice for artistic qualities, but if I'm looking for accuracy I reach for an NIV.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Accuracy depends on how and what you are looking at. Accuracy can be in both version. I find that the King James version to be both accurate and artistic.

[Jair]

Accuracy depends on how and what you are looking at. Accuracy can be in both version. I find that the King James version to be both accurate and artistic.

The King James version greatly sacrifice accuracy for aestheticism.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

The King James version greatly sacrifice accuracy for aestheticism.

Aestheticism can be found throughout the King James version but behind those aestheticisms is accuracy. They just can't be seen right away.

[Jair]

Aestheticism can be found throughout the King James version but behind those aestheticisms is accuracy. They just can't be seen right away.

"Thou shalt not kill" is an aesthetic blooper in the King James version. There is no accuracy hidden behind it.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

"Thou shalt not kill" is an aesthetic blooper in the King James version. There is no accuracy hidden behind it.

Hahaha! My mistake. Not everything in the King James version is aesthetic...Some are flat out blunt...Such as "Thou shalt not kill"

[BienvenuJDC]

The KJV is nice for artistic qualities, but if I'm looking for accuracy I reach for an NIV.

If you're reaching for the NIV for accuracy, then you've made your first mistake. There are much more reliable versions. The NIV isn't even a translation, it's a "dynamic equivalent" which allowed for the translators to add a little of their own slant.

[YesNo]

If you're reaching for the NIV for accuracy, then you've made your first mistake. There are much more reliable versions. The NIV isn't even a translation, it's a "dynamic equivalent" which allowed for the translators to add a little of their own slant.
I don't know anything about the NIV, but since you claim it is inaccurate, what would be an example of an inaccuracy and what version do you consider more accurate?

Recently, I found the following site that has multiple translations of the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

Is there a better source?

[RetsixArp]

...I have found the Book of J an interesting translation of what Harold Bloom and David Rosenberg believe to be the part that J (Bathsheba?) wrote. ...I've just begun reading The Book of J: what I find so interesting in Bloom's view is that the rabbis & scholars in the 2d cent. C.E. rewrote much if not all of the Old Testament to conform to the horrors of Roman occupation.

I've not exactly read the Bible: I bought the 66-CD KJV audiobook w/ Alexander Scourby & have listened to it many times thru (I have a long commute to work!) & there are frequent enough allusions to Romans in the O.T. (including one single mention of "Palestine"; I forget where) to make me believe the KJV is a long way from what was the orig. O.T. So altho the Romans weren't occupying Judea when the O.T. was orig. written, it was rewritten w/ Romans weighing heavily on rabbis & scholars.