From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: TANGENT:  Interpretation
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:17:28 GMT

Revisions of earlier reply:

In article <1992Sep9.172704.13095@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.185717.25673@newshost.unh.edu>, ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>The second thing is that the purpose of the NKJV -- officially
>>stated by the translators of the NKJV -- was to get people AWAY
>>from the King James Version.  Stop and think.  Why in the world
>>would anybody care whether you were using a King James Bible or
>>not?  Man, it's anything to get you away from that Book.
>
>How about so that people could read a Bible written in English?  If having
>a Bible in the native language was good enough in 1611, why is it not good
>enough now?  Let some fresh air in.

I'm not bashing the KJV here.  It's still one the best translations around,
as testified to by its longevity and continued extensive use.  I'm simply
saying that, unless one is intimately familiar with English c. 1611, the KJV
is not the translation for common use.  This I know from the experience
of a friend of mine who gets very lost in the Bible because she can't read the
language.  Each translation has its strengths and weaknesses.  The biggest
weakness of the KJV is the archaic language.  The errors in the KJV are well
documented in 381 years so that they aren't a major problem.  The biggest
weakness in the NIV is the propensity of the translators to exaggerate or
twist Greek statements to more clearly fit dogma, e.g. Philippians 2:6,
instead of giving what's written.  Of course, that's how the Johannine comma
got in the KJV :-).

>>Question:  if we've got thirty different English
>>versions of the infallible Word of God, why the heck would God,
>>in Heaven, inspire another translation?  

Who said God INSPIRED any translation?  The only requirement for making a
translation is intimate knowledge of Hebrew/Aramaic/Koine.  

>>Fifth.  The American Standard Version was translated in 1901, and
>>everybody everywhere were getting so caught up in it, claiming it
>>was the most reliable Word of God for the English language.  But
>>then, when the New American Standard Version came out decades
>>later, the American Standard Version disappeared.  Vanished.  Now,
>>you can't hardly find a single copy of the American Standard
>>Version.  Everybody's using the New American Standard.  Well,
>>from Isaiah 40:8 which says God's Word will not pass away, the
>>only logical conclusion is that the American Standard Version
>>must not have been the Word of God.  It passed away.  
>
>Too bad then that the NIV is the fastest selling translation now.  Use
>your own logic.

What I mean by this is that the NIV is supplanting the KJV for many young
Christians.  I doubt the KJV will pass away (btw, I can still find an ASV so 
it hasn't totally passed away, but I assume you didn't mean your statement to 
be taken absolutely) but it will be replaced as the main Christian Bible 
fairly soon, if not already.  So, by your logic, the NIV must have suddenly 
become the infallible word of God and the KJV suddenly stopped.  Once again, I 
thought God preserved His word.

All translations are attempts by scholars to render the meaning of the word
of God in readable language.  None is perfect, including the KJV.  Each has
its strengths and weaknesses.  Taken together, the student of the Bible can
usually get a fairly clear understanding of what Paul et al wrote.  Take each
translation for what it is and use it accordingly.

  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian