Since we already have/had an English Bible, is this not "adding" to it?

I believe the Bible to be the word of God. But have these questions...

We now have many numerous, over 300 at some people's caluculation, of English translations of the Bible.

If one is to think that there is a need for newer translations due to whatever assumed rationale, I have the following three concerns:

One, could not such an arbitrary translation change to the Bible be considered "adding to it" as some propose that John told us not to do in Revelations 22:18...?

Two, by what "authority" does one assume the ablity to make any changes? Didn't God say in Heberws 5:4 "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron."

If you are to counter that changes are "called of God," then why would God call on so many to make so many different changes?

Three, if we assume that the King James Version is faulty, would not changing something faulty result is sonething equally just as faulty? A branch from a dead tree would also be dead.

Sample of many different translations:

Contemporary English Version (CEV

English Standard Version (ESV)

Good News Bible (Today's English Version) (TEV)

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

The Living Bible (LB)

The Message (Msg) - Eugene Peterson completed this paraphrase of the entire Bible in 2002.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)of the translation.

New International Version (NIV

New King James Version (NKJV

New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)

New Living Translation (NLT

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

Revised English Bible (REB)

Sincere opinions appreciated..........(I personally study and use the King James Version.)

14 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Well the Muslims tend to believe that the whole Bible has been tainted and isn't accurate. An interesting viewpoint to say the least. They are obviously aware that a lot of things in the bible are lost as most LDS know of as well.

    True, the KJV isn't completely accurate either, but it's the best for not being completely adulterated from the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

    I am very uncomfortable by someone changing a word and saying this is what the word means especially in this day and age. It's underhandingly manipulating the meanings and the interpretation of scripture. I know others will disagree with it. But all of these other versions of the Bible differ each from one another in word choice. People struggle with interpretation of the bible anyway. Having multiple versions just makes interpretation even worse and ends up causing more confusion.

    Christ taught that his gospel wasn't suppose to be a gospel of confusion, having multiple versions of the bible just makes it even more of a muddle.

    Now knowing that even more people will disagree with me on the following statement. This is a primary reason why LDS members believe in other scriptural texts and why it's essential for a text such as the Book of Mormon to be present. It gives things back that were taken in various meanings and also were lost from the Bible.

    Source(s): LDS
  • rac
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Cudos to Becca Lynn.

    Joseph Smith said that he could have provided a better translation or interpretation to the KJV but that it was good enough for his purposes. Smith started on an inspired translation but never completed it. We have pieces of it that were preserved by the Reorganized LDS started by his son, Joseph III. Those exerpts were incorporated into the current LDS publication of the KJV of the Bible.

    One of the things I found ironic was when I was reading the Portuguese translation of the Bible. I took three volumes and compared the same verses in each one and found them worded differently. The new English translations of the Bible do the same thing. The different wordings can and do yield different interpretations or at least nuances to the verses.

    That is another reason why the Bible states that the scriptures are of no private interpretation. Meaning that we should always seek the inspiration of the Holy Ghost when reading the scriptures so that we can have the Lord's understanding and interpretation thereof.

    2 Pet. 1: 20

    20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

    Source(s): LDS
  • 1 decade ago

    When one asks which Bible version is "most accurate" you need to consider several things.

    The ancient Hebrew and Greek:

    1. Contain words that do not directly translate to English and vice versa. Or words that can be translated but have many confusing alternate meanings.

    2. Contain idioms, sayings and figures of speach that are alien to us.

    3. Are void of many of the little connecting words we have in English.

    4. Have a much different sentence structure with nouns, verbs and adjectives reararranged.

    5. 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person pronouns are gender specific in Hebrew. Masculine and feminine.

    6. And many other stylization issues.

    It is difficult to say which translation is the "best." "Best" would be determined by a combination of the translation method personally considered best and your interpretation of the textual data underlying your translation. For example, the KJV and NAS attempted to take the underlying Hebrew and Greek words and translate them into the closest corresponding English words as possible (word for word), while the NIV and NLT attempted to take the original thought that was being presented in Greek and Hebrew and then express that thought in English (thought for thought). Many of the other translations attempt to "meet in the middle" between those two methods. Paraphrases such as The Message or The Living Bible can be used to gain a different perspective on the meaning of a verse, but they should not be used as a primary Bible translation.

  • 1 decade ago

    If you think John was talking about translating the Bible...then what makes you think the King James version is the "correct" one. It wasn't around when John wrote revelations. If you are concerned about that..then learn Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek...these are the languages the Bible was originally written in.

    Do you honestly think that when the King James version was translated that King James had the best translators to work on it? Do you think we could of learned anything about translating from the original languages into english since 1769 when the King James was translated? Besides...King James had other motives for translating a new english version...he WANTED some things added to the Bible.

    For you to say that the ONLY english translation that is valid is the King James version makes you look a little arrogant.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    In the Bible it only appears as consonants YHWH (otherwise known as the Tetragrammaton, link!). It is thought that some sects thought the name of God was too holy to even be written out. But here's the rub - nobody anymore remembers what the vowels are supposed to be. This means that the 'Yahweh' construction is purely hypothetical. I've seen others (like 'Jehovah') that connect it to other traditions. So either the former reason (it wasn't spelled out for a reason) or the latter (nobody really knows how to spell it out) is probably why it still gets excluded.

  • 1 decade ago

    "(I personally study and use the King James Version.)"

    Yes, but that's hardly English any more.. English has moved, meanings have changed.

    "Let " means allow, not "prevent"

    "Bowels" now means "heart", metaphorically...

    English isn't a fixed-point target for translation,

    and that inevitably makes previously valid translations less than accurate, never mind any later improvements in available manuscripts and techniques of textual criticism.

    And why should any translation be "arbitrary"?

    There are issues for any translation, KJV included: Static and dynamic and single word-equivalents, for example.

    That doesn't make them examples of random word-plucking.

    It does mean one ought to be aware of what one is reading, and not imbue it with mystical powers an values. Especially the KJV which often seems to be granted this status.

  • bwlobo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Some translations are word for word. Some translations are meaning for meaning. Some translations are phrase for phrase.

    All of these translations are based on the Hebrew and Greek languages in which it was written.

    Source(s): bwlobo
  • 1 decade ago

    Even if you have the same bible, individuals come up with different interpretations of it (do we add to John's book or to the bible, are we all to be angels, or just the seven brothers. A prophet is the key. Without a prophet, everyone goes to his own way. The Book of Mormon is from the Lord to his other sheep on this continent through his prophets. Together with the Bible, it helps to clear up a lot of misundrstanding.(mormon.org)

  • BK
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    You are quick to use the word "arbitrary"... legitimate translations are painstakingly done to be faithful to the text and intent... by scholars and language experts.

    These versions are not "dead", I read "The Message" frequently, and it speaks in very special and powerful ways, as other translations do. They are a benefit, not a departure.

    I think God wants people to read His Word, and people are unique, as God made them, and different versions will reach people in unique ways.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    one, why wouldn't the first translation also be considered "adding to it"

    two, by what authority was the KJV written

    three, additional translations are not done based on the KJV they are based on older versions done in the original language

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.