gmlewisJoseph Smith shouldn't have used any language he was
familiar with to translate. He was translating, and according to scribes, he
looked in a hat and a word would appear, and would not disappear until what was
written was correct. Why then, if he was indeed translating, would he need to
use the bible as reference? It doesn't add up, it never has, and it never
I agree with many of this article's concerns. At the same time, I love and
welcome this movie, because I also highly endorse the article written by Linda
& Richard Eyre and their "love-hate relationship with movies".Seeing this movie was far and away the most touching experience
I've ever had in a movie theater.
Regarding the King James, or Authorized version, of the Bible: While it stands
as a monument to the beauty of the English language, the epitome of prose and
poetry, it does, nevertheless, have some badly translated words throughout.
There is no harm in doing comparative studies in other English-language
versions, let alone reading it in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek,
with a smattering of Aramaic. The New King James Version has corrected most, if
not all, of the faults from the original, while keeping the beauty of the
phrasing and lyrics intact. Lastly, let's not get tangled up in a sense of
superiority with regard to which version of the Bible is better. God's Word
has been translated into hundreds, if not thousands, of languages - and it works
in every one!
Wow, what a silly topic to worry about. If the Holy Spirt spoke in King James
english 90% of the world would have no clue what He was saying. As for
Joe Smith using the King James wording "it was the only version in english
for him to rip off" when making up his vision!
RE: TruthBTold,I did seethe Movie,i.e…… Pilate’s
wife(Procula) sent him this message: “Leave that good man alone; for I
had a terrible nightmare concerning him(Jesus) last night(Mt 27:19
LB&NLT).Not in the Son of God movie but,Claudia *Procula becomes
a Christian and is a Saint in Eastern Orthodox Church. …Claudia and all
the brothers and sisters.(2 Tim 4:21 NIV).Claudius Caesar Augustus
1 August 10 BC – 13 October AD 54) was Roman emperor from 41 to 54.
Claudia was his illegitimate daughter.@ “I too would have
appreciated more depiction of the Atonement and Our Savior's suffering in
the Garden.” Because many early and better Greek mss and
diverse and widespread witnesses exclude (Luke 22:43-44). Footnote in
(NIV,NKJV,ESV,)The Son of God in the movie said, "Today shalt
thou be with me in “paradise=(paradeisos,G# 3857)”. (Luke 23:43 KJV,
NIV, NET). Yet, Joseph Smith taught that the thief on the cross was
to be with Jesus Christ "in the world of spirits" and (Jesus) did not
say paradise or heaven, Wrong.
I wonder how many people on this Blog criticizing the film, actually went and
saw it--or just watched the Trailer.Regardless of all this talk
about language, wording, etc., the movie itself was beautiful, well-portrayed,
realistic (as I would imagine it) but not over-the-top Hollywood-style, and
certainly brought to mind the images one thinks of when humbly reading the New
Testament.I too would have appreciated more depiction of the
Atonement and Our Savior's suffering in the Garden, but the overall message
was clear, clean, reverent and relevant. I felt my own testimony grow even more
that we/I do have a Savior, that He loves all of us, that He has compassion for
everyone, and that His Atonement is available to all.I do love a
Hollywood Action Adventure as much as anyone else (as long as it fits my
personal standards), but I am most thankful to the Producers of this film for
bringing to the mainstream a movie that provides an alternative to adultery,
hate, war-mongering and pride.If you have not done so, I would
encourage you to see it; then post your judgement.
Don't forget to read the book.
While I do think the King James version is a more accurate translation I think
is important to make this film appealing to believers and nonbelievers. Many
people are put off by the old English language in the KJV and in a way it is
another barrier to overcome for some to find the word of God, the truth. I think
to try to tell the story of the Bible or even the New Testament in 2 1/2 hours
requires a certain amount Flexibility that does require some interpretation. I
do feel this is an excellent tool for believers to invite others to view with
them in order to start a meaningful dialogue which may result in leading them to
Christ. I thought it was very good that Judas was portrayed with some kindness.
Jesus knew what the end was and knew His part in it. Judas had his part to play
as well in order for the greatest gift ever given to become real. Anything that
can bring more people closer to God is a good thing and as believers we must
spread the word of God to others.
I like the poetic quality of much of the King James version of the Bible.
Recently I saw Le Miserables on HBO Go. The entire dialog was sung and was
quite poetic. It was beautiful, the message and the words. Not that a Bible
movie shouldn't be in modern language, but if it is, that can be beautiful
if done right.
How sad it is to get get caught up in the use of words. They limit us so much.
The use of King James terms is merely a vehicle. I am confident that whatever
was said by Christ has had interpretations, subtraction, editing and revisions
placed upon them. But what does not change is the spirit behind them. The
message and purpose that they bring.It is easy to criticize the way
a book is written or translated but the concepts are a different subject.
Regardless of the language chosen by the author/translator/writer it is the
message that matters most.Let other get caught up in exactitudes but
I for one love the language of Moroni - no matter what style it is written - to
know what is of God with a perfect knowledge is simple - that which leads us to
Christ is of God - that which leads us away from him is not.KJ
Version or Modern English - is it not better to ask what leads us to Christ, his
teachings and ultimately his atonement?
Hutterite,I believe "Bronze Age" when used in context with
Biblical writings is a kind of code for denigrating any value that words or
ideas from that era could have for us modern folk, particularly when coming from
the Bible. Is that how you meant to use it?In any case, your
identifying Jesus as a Bronze Age anything has Fail written on it. My references
tell me the Bronze Age ended, and the current Iron age began, about 1200 BC.
I will pass on this one. I watched much of the TV series it was taken from,
and feel I have seen the movie. I am not a fan of most movies where Jesus looks
like a Hollywood super star, I like it to be a little more believable. Just
not my movie this time. Will wait for the next one and see. I have heard that
lots of people really enjoyed it and I am glad for them.
@ hutteriteI'd be willing to be that you don't look
anything like I imagine that you look like. I don't see what difference
that makes. His mother was from that area, but his Father wasn't.
"Vulnerable on interpretation" is just about the entire premise of
religion. Everyone claims absolute truth yet it seems a slippery and entirely
subjective commodity. And the chap in the photo just doesn't look like I
would imagine a bronze age Palestinian looked like.
@Copacetic: While I generally agree with your sentiments, I feel duty-bound to
point out a couple of errors that attenuate the effect of your argument. First,
"Ranch" is anything but contrite. He is cynical, snide, and maybe
arrogant, but certainly not contrite. Second, the language Jesus spoke is
thought to be Aramaic, a close relative of Hebrew, but not Hebrew as it is
spoken today. Finally "it's importance" should be "its
importance." As for most English-speaking people today having become
familiar with the Bible in King James English, I'm not sure. There are
many different versions these days, and the only place I consistently hear the
King James version is in the LDS Church. When I have visited other Christian
churches or heard their representatives speak at events, they have employed a
modern translation. I love the KJV and think it's sad that it's not
as popular as it once was, but it isn't.
@ Ranch:I've read many of your past comments and thus seen your
contrite attitude on anything related to religion. As such, I'm certain you
missed the main premise of this movie review as well as the primary purpose of
the film itself. To complain about such a trivial element of the
film is to attenuate it's overall importance and seems rather juvenile.
Most of us are well aware that Hebrew was spoken then and there. But most of us
don't speak that language. The point about using King James
English is that it does have a certain regal poetic pose to it. And it's
the written context wherein most English speaking people have learned and become
familiar with the Bible... the King James version. I for one
would've very much enjoyed hearing that particular vernacular when seeing
When Heavenly Father proclaimed, "This is My Beloved Son" to the
Nephites, they did not at first understand the words. Could they have been
delivered in the language of heaven? The Nephites would have written them down
in their current language, and they were translated by Joseph Smith using King
James Version language he was familiar with.
Ranch,Yes, and Jesus kept that King James English "accent"
when he appeared to and taught the ancient Nephites, as well as when he appeared
to and instructed Joseph Smith!Isn't that remarkable.
"Instead of using subtitles or having characters speak in King James
English, characters in “Son of God” use a more contemporary
vernacular. While this is clearly meant to make the language and teachings more
accessible, a certain poetic quality is lost."LOL. I'm
sure Jesus and his followers all spoke perfect "King James English" when
they were running around doing their doings.