The KJV bible, for the most part, opened the word of God to the masses. Prior to it being published in english,the biblewas only available in Greek, Hebrew and some Latin. Therefore, the only people who could read or interpret it was, for the most part scholars and those in the priesthood. A man named William Tyndale actually was the first to translate the bible into english. His version was not widely accepted by the church, however and he was burned at the stake for his work, a true martyr. The King James version was printed later and was the result of the work of over 40 bible scholars of the day. While the KJV remains the standard for modern interpretations, I personally feel that many times the NIV is a bit easier to understand for most people since the structure of our language is different than the english used in the KJV. The full NIV bible was first published in 1978 and was the result of the work of over 100 bible scholars. IMO and as I state, my opinion, it is a better translation due to the fact that when it was published, they had better or more original texts that had not even been discoverd when the KJV was written. I know that there are many who would disagree with that statement but that's just my opinion. Many times when I have looked up the meaning of a word from the Strong's concordance, which is a concordance for King James, the translation will be the word that already appears in the NIV. So I know this will probably unleash a firestorm of differing opinions but overall, while I believe both versions areaccurate,the easier version to read for most people is the NIV.
Blessings.....Pastorjim
__________________
Mere religion is just hanging around the cross.......True Christianity is getting on the cross.
The KJV bible, for the most part, opened the word of God to the masses.
That would only be true for the English speaking masses, and then, only those who could read.
Luther's translation of the Scriptures into German preceeded the King James version and actually had the effect of standardizing the German language. The effect of Luther's translation was considerably magnified by the fact that it coincided with Gutenberg's invention of movable type.*
*Most of us believe that Gutenberg was the first to use movable type, but it was actually first developed by the Koreans and, perhaps even earlier, by the Chinese. It wasn't practical in the Orient because of the thousands of characters until the Koreans developed a 24 letter alphabet.
May The Sheep Be With You
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
You are absolutely correct! Thank you for pointing that out. I was just thinkinking of english speaking people when I posted that comment. I didn't mention Martin Luther because his version was not as widely published or circulated at the time. That was great information regarding the type set and alphabet. Thank you for posting it.
Blessings.....Pastorjim
__________________
Mere religion is just hanging around the cross.......True Christianity is getting on the cross.
There was a translation into German even before Luther. It was done by Catholics, and I think it was led by the German bishops, if memory serves. In any case, it was done with the approval of the ecclesial authorities.
Since I'm a priest, people sometimes ask me about which Bible translation I recommend. For study, I like the RSV, KJV, or NAB. (That last one is the New American Bible--the official translation for the Catholic Church in the U.S). It has good footnotes and study versions have good commentaries to go along.
All three of them are fairly literal and translated according to high academic standards. For something more poetic and perhaps oriented more prayer and devotional, I recommend the the Jerusalem Bible. Very poetic but not so much so as to lose the meaning.
I hope this will not hijack the thread, but when you are discussing various translations of the Bible, what is the informed opinion about the New Living Translation (NLT)?
When reading the scriptures, I am comfortable with the definition of a word as it is used today, but am really trying to make sure I understand the context and meaning of the passage. NIV and NLT seem to help.
The NLT is considered a dynamic equivilant translation. In other words, instead of translating word for word, it is a translation ofan idea ofwhat the interpreters thought that the original writers were trying to express. It is also many times gender non-specific,using phrases such as all people instead of all men or brothers and sisters, as opposed tothe brethren. It may be okay for a beginner in the faith to use, only to get them used to some of the ideas in the bible,but it is not a serious study bible. I think the concept of athought for thought interpretation as opposed to a word for word interpretation is getting to far from the original text. Where it's thought for thought concept matches the original text exactly, it might be okay to use it for contemporary language's sake. While I have never preached from it, I have, on occasion, looked at a passage of scripture that I might have had trouble understanding to see if the way it was worded in the NLT made it a bit clearer. All that said, I would never condemn anyone for reading it.
Blessings.....Pastorjim
__________________
Mere religion is just hanging around the cross.......True Christianity is getting on the cross.
Well, now I can see why certain people regard this version as the standard but at the same time I can find no reason as to why it should be the standard. Though it does fit the agenda of most. However, I need to keep in mind with the true teachings of the Teacher that all written versions of the Holy Bible were written by sinners like us. So in reality, you're right I do not have a point. [&o]
I'm still learning how to truly follow Jesus so I will just keep my mouth shut and mind to my own NIV bible from now on. It only seems difficult for me to go that extra mile right now but I am getting there.
king jimmy
May The Sheep Be With You
