I recently heard, not for the first time mind you, that the King James is the only "authorized" version of the Bible. This is ludicrous! The English language is quite different from 1611 and many of the words used are now defined quite differently. Elitism within the walls of a church is ridiculous and one of the things I cannot stand. If the KJV was the only "correct" translation then any non-English printing would be irrelevant which makes witnessing in a foreign language pretty hard. I personally like to use the New American Standard Zondervan study Bible as my primary text with a New King James study bible for reference. Mrs. Dude uses the NIV Quest study bible so we have a pretty broad range with which to cross-examine and verify. The only two translations I ever saw that were lame were "The Book" and "The Message", both of which make little sense to me and seem to cater to the author's emotions. I would also suggest knowing the difference between a transliteration and a translation. As far as Salvation and anyone's elitist or universalist junk:
Romans 10:9
John 14:6
4 comments:
The term "Authorized" is used by the English and by librarians to refer to what the Americans call "King James Version" Holy Bible. The Bible version printed at the time of Queen Elizabeth I, whom James succeeded, was also an "Authorized" version.
They were authorized because the monarch was also the head of the Church of England, appointing the Archbishop of Canterbury. This was done to equate the authority of the Vatican's Pope with that of the English monarchy(Henry VIII's Law of Supremacy).
Around the time of 1600, having "unauthorized" versions of the Bible in England was considered heresy and perhaps treasonous to the English Crown, so the translation and what else was included on the page was very important then.
Some groups now hold to a single particular version of the Bible as being best for their doctrinal beliefs and that is good and their church's right. I don't think it is "elitist" as you use the term as everyone has their personal preferences. They just prefer the traditional and particular language or word choices found in the KJV or NIV, etc. It is all God-breathed inspiration. The original KJV had the literal translation of some Hebrew and Greek words noted in the margins and used Roman (looks like Courier) typeface instead of the standard "Old English" or Blackletter typeface to show where verbs like "art" were inserted into the translations to make it read more clearly. Blackletter type was the traditional typeface for English bible printers, contrasting with Roman typefaces which were the traditional choice of the Geneva bible printers.
So the differences or changes in the translation were noted from the very beginning and were a main reason for the new printing of the Authorized Version. Benson Bobrick's "Wide as the Waters" is a great history of English bibles- highly recommended!
Meh, I wouldn't let it get to you. You are pretty intelligent and grounded in your beliefs and can have a meaningful conversation about it.
I like a more literal translation, such as the New American Standard Bible. I dig etymology though, so perhaps that's just a personal thing. However, I would never tell you that my Bible is better than yours, well, unless it was something you made with some crayons or something.
I agree with you Capt. Interesting reading on your posts.
"Steve" had a lot to say anyway.
Post a Comment