Comments on: OTFTW 2: Is the King James a Good Translation

By: joel

joel — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:07:56 +0000

A big reason for using the KJV for study (my daily reading/listening is all over the place: NIV, WEB, The Message, NLT and more) is access to the original languages. Despite the weaknesses of the manuscripts the KJV is based on, there are tons of tools for a reader to get at the original Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, eg. http://www.blueletterbible.org/, and http://crosswire.org/study

By: Todd Wood

Todd Wood — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:08:51 +0000

For pulpit study, I have a wide-margined Cambridge KJV, containing the full preface by the translators.

When I was reading it again yesterday, I really liked this statement at the end of the second to the last paragraph on page xxv:

“But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”

I preach with the KJV on Sundays, teach with the ESV on Mondays with teens, and then converse with the NASB during Wednesday night Inductive studies. And I use the NLT for readings with my family.

By: Ray

Ray — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:19:20 +0000

I used to attend a ward many moons ago in which we used three different Bibles in Gospel Doctrine, KJV being one of them, and we would compare how the different versions handled the scriptures we studied. It was the most fascinating class I ever attended.

By: The Yellow Dart

The Yellow Dart — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:21:44 +0000

Despite the positive reasons given in the post and comments for utilizing the KJV translation, I still really don’t like it very much. For me, at least, the Bible often remains an arcane document even in a good modern scholarly translations, or even in the original languages for that matter, and so the archaic language of the KJV Bible is quite unnecessary in order to help me realize that I am dealing with a foreign text (although perhaps this is simply because I am not as inherently intelligent as everyone else). Further, God doesn’t speak to me in KJV English–rather, he speaks to me in my own language according to my understanding (2 Nephi 31:3); and, at any rate, I think that it is more valuable for readers to understand their religious texts which they are dealing with as easily and thoroughly as possible than that they should struggle with overcoming both the foreignness of the Bible and a translation that can often foster misunderstanding through its arcane language. I also think that the modern translations not only aid in understanding, but also frankly make reading the Bible more enjoyable (for instance, by formatting the text more appropriately to poetry, etc.), and so make it more likely that persons will 1) read the text, 2) keep reading, 3) understand more completely what they are reading, and 4) want to read it again (and again). I also think that it is unnecessary to know KJV English to understand the rest of the Restoration scriptures (I read the BofM in modern German, and I think I do alright with it), and, while it might be useful is seeing some scriptural cross-references, etc., it certainly doesn’t seem essential. I also don’t think that the language of the KJV is inherently more aesthetically appealing–rather, reading with understanding is the most desirable objective in my judgment, and when I read a translation that is clear and understandable (or the original texts), the “light,” “spirit,” and “truth” that I feel emanating from it is its most invigorating, valuable, and appealing feature for me.

Best wishes,

TYD

By: DavidH

DavidH — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:50:08 +0000

I have not seen detailed posts about the new LDS Spanish 1909 Reina Valera, but some of the issues have been discussed here: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/09/some-notes-on-the-new-spanish-lds-bible/

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/03/santa-biblia/

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:52:41 +0000

Oh, and nice post, Nitsav.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:51:54 +0000

“The new “official” LDS Spanish Bible translation is based on the earlier, arguably more archaic 1909 Reina Valera Protestant version, rather than the more modern 1960 Reina Valera version we used when I served. I liked the more modern translation better.”

DavidH: It should be noted, though it may not be the only reason for this decision, that the Church said that one reason for the 1909 edition was because it was the most recent version in the public domain which they could use. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if they would have wanted the more arcane language regardless.

By: Chris H.

Chris H. — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:22:53 +0000

This reminds me of an experience I had while living in Rexburg. A ward member who travelled regularly for his insurance-related job related in testimony meeting that he was so glad to live in Rexburg where the members were more faithful. He had been in Providence, RI and during Sunday School there was a serious discussion about which translation of the Bible was the best. I laughed to myself because I realized that a number of those discussants were likely grad students in Religion at Brown. The laugh soon turned to depression as I thought about how he had gotten to attend Sunday School with FPR-types and hated it. I turned to my wife and said, “I want to go to Church there.”

Someday.

By: Nitsav

Nitsav — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:22:15 +0000

Thanks for the comment Blake.

DavidH, that’s interesting. My Spanish isn’t good enough to evaluate the new Bible, and I don’t think I’ve seen a blog post dedicated to its analysis yet.

The KJV translators opted for a special translation in 1Co 13, since there’s not a specific Greek word for “charity” as most of us would define it. The Greek there is simply one of the three common Greek words for “love.”

By: DavidH

DavidH — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:14:47 +0000

My impression is that the Church has moved more toward literal/formal translation than functional equivalence in its translation of its English based materials into other languages. I have notices that the words of the newer Spanish hymnal track much more closely the original English wording of the U.S. hymnal than did the Spanish hymnal when I served a Spanish speaking mission 35 years ago. I cannot say whether this newer wording is more or less reader/singer friendly.

The new “official” LDS Spanish Bible translation is based on the earlier, arguably more archaic 1909 Reina Valera Protestant version, rather than the more modern 1960 Reina Valera version we used when I served. I liked the more modern translation better.

For example, I never understood 1 Corinthians 13 until I served a mission and used the more modern Reina Valera translation that speaks of the preeminence of “amor” (love) rather than using the (what I think is archaic) word “caridad” (charity).

I can understand the concept that doing great things without “love” is ultimately hollow. Because I know, or at least I think I know, what “love” is (even special kinds of love).

But when we use the KJV word “charity” instead of “love”, it does cloud, for me, the concept in a little bit of mystery, even though the Book of Mormon defines this KJV word as “pure love of Christ.” In my opinion, the addition of this aspect of mystery makes the passage less accessible.

Spanish speakers in the Church now are returning to “caridad” as the word in 1 Corinthians 13 rather than “amor”. Of course, this will be consistent with the Book of Mormon translation, which used “caridad” to translate the BofM word “charity” in the passages parallel to 1 Corinthians 13 (in keeping with a literal/formal translation).