Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?

104 Pages·2016·1.86 MB·English

Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
Why would anybody still use the KJV? - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/1/26 14:43
This thread is the consequence of many others where I have found myself in the unusual position of defending various
'modern translations' against what I felt to be unfair positions. However, although I have often defended other versions
my abiding delight is in the KJV. In fact, I have found myself in exactly the position described by A W Tozer many years
ago. I think this was posted on SI but I can't find it so my apologies for posting it again. Hopefully this will set the mood
for this particular thread...Confessions of a New Version Addict. by A.W.Tozer.
Since shortly after my conversion to Christ as a teen-ager I have been addicted to the habit of acquiring and being disap
pointed with new versions of the Scriptures, both revisions and new translations.
It is a habit I cannot shake off. In spite of a long record of frustrated hopes and cruel disappointments, to this day I have
but to hear a new version of the Scriptures has come out and I am off to the book-seller to pick up a copy. As Ponce de
Leon, otherwise a sensible enough fellow, knocked about the world looking for a nonexistent fountain of youth, so I conti
nue to look for the new version that will make any other new versions unnecessary by bringing out the meanings of the
Holy Scriptures as sharply as the developer brings out the details of the picture on a photographic plate.
But it never works out that way. After poring over the new book for a few days or weeks and finding that it is just one mor
e version, I put it aside and return to my first love, the familiar King James Bible. I know its mistakes very well, its mistran
slations and confused tenses; I should, for the Bible teachers are forever correcting it in public and the introductions to th
e new versions never tire of pointing out these flaws in the grand old English Bible.
It has been my experience that the new versions make at least one mistake for every one they correct, so by the time th
e trusting reader has reached the last chapter of the Book of Revelation he is back where he started and just goes out b
y that same door where in he went. And in the meanwhile he has lost the incalculable benefit of constant and intimate m
ental association with the clearest, richest and most beautiful English to be found anywhere among the libraries of the W
orld, the Authorized Version.
I believe that my error has been that I have nursed the hope, perhaps subconsciously, that my dullness of spirit and cold
ness of heart are the result of not hearing the truth expressed clearly enough in the common language of the street; that
if I could hear a promise or a commandment couched in different words it would be easier to believe and obey. But this i
s a gross fallacy. Words are only arbitrary symbols to convey meanings, and the meaning is all that matters.
God would impart an idea to mankind, so He employs a verbal symbol which the reader can understand. That is what la
nguage is for, and that is all it is for, unless, as I have suggested above, the language becomes a thing of beauty in insel
f and so exerts a cultural influence upon those who read it and hear it spoken. But that is secondary; the primary purpos
e of language is to express truth, and it is before the bar of truth that we must all stand at last.
Mark Twain, when asked what he did about the passages of Scripture he could not understand, is supposed to have repl
ied that these did not bother him. "But the ones I can understand," he said, "often make me sweat." I believe that there is
serious danger that we ignore the plain truth (which, incidentally, is about the same in all versions) while we search for n
ovel meanings and more modern expressions of old truths which we know well enough but make no effort to obey.
The chief purpose of the Word of God is to reveal saving truth, to bring men to Christ, to make them holy, to draw them i
nto loving communion with God and to teach them how to do good to all men, especially to them that are of the househo
ld of faith. Let a man study prayerfully any of the generally recognized versions, done by proficient and responsible schol
ars, and the Spirit will quicken the truth to his heart and lead him toward the ends God has in view for him. Almost everyt
hing depends upon his response to the Spirit's workings. While it is important that the translations be accurate and faithf
ul, yet better versions do not make better men.
And this brings us to consider those translators who think to do God service by packing into the English text every possi
ble shade of meaning the word will bear in the original. The synonyms are put in brackets and the reader, apparently, jus
t takes his choice.
Page 1/104
Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
This would never do anywhere else. Imagine reading to a child. "Twinkle, twinkle (blink, wink, shine intermittently, sparkl
e), little (diminutive, small, wee, tiny) star (heavenly body, luminary, orb, sphere), How I wonder (question, puzzle over, d
ubitate) what you are (be, have identify with, belong under the description of), Up above (atop, opposite to down, contrar
y to direction of gravity) the world (the earth, the abode of human-kind) so high (elevated), Like a diamond (gem, preciou
s stone, crystallized carbon) in the sky (the heavens, the firmament, the empyrean)"Yet this is the latest religious word g
ame in evangelical circles and we are all urged to play at it. For myself, I cannot keep serious while reading such a versi
on, so I just pass up these uncertain translators and turn to one who can make up his mind. I have a secret love for deci
siveness.
It is quite natural for us humans to ignore the high moral intent of the Holy Scriptures and get lost in verbiage. "Blessed a
re the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,"says the old version, and multitudes over the centuries have kne
lt in pentitence and tearfully sought to know true poverty of spirit; lately the fad seems to be to try to find shades of mean
ing for the words and to express them in more colloquial language. I wonder if anyone benefits by having the same thing
said several different ways for him.
A few hundred years ago it was considered very much the thing for ministers preaching in English to interlard their serm
ons with frequent Greek and Latin words and phrases, always left untranslated by the speaker. His hearers were no dou
bt duly impressed with his learning but they had not the faintest notion what he was talking about. He has now been disp
laced by the preacher who knows enough Greek to make him uncomfortable and can never resist the temptation to turn
every sermon into a classroom lecture. I have sometimes thought (and I trust not uncharitably) that the knowledge of a lit
tle Greek is a great convenience to such a man, for the Greek being a remarkably accommodating language enables hi
m to preach anything he wants to without being challenged.
All this is not to cry down true scholarship nor to discourage honest attempts to put the Bible into modem speech. It is rat
her to confess that I have not become a holier man nor a better preacher by my incurable addiction to new versions of th
e Scriptures. I find that if I am failing to live in accordance with the will of God, I get no relief by reading about that will in
a new translation.
As soon as God shows a man the way, it is his duty and happy privilege to walk in it. If he refuses or neglects to walk in i
t he may seek some temporary consolation by looking about for some version that will say the same thing to him in a diff
erent way. While he is jockeying about for new shades of meaning his conscience may get a bit of rest, but I am sure tha
t a faithful God will not let him escape. Sometime he'll have to face up to the meaning of things, no matter in what versio
n they are expressed.
As I write I can see fifteen versions before me without turning my head and there are many more stashed about here an
d there. And they all say the same thing to me; namely, that I must trust Christ Jesus the Lord as my Saviour, love God
with all my heart, soul and mind, and my neighbour as myself. They all say that I must be holy, humble, obedient, prayer
ful, pure, kindly, courageous and faithful. They all say that God is my Father and the Holy Spirit the inhabitant of my natu
re through the mystery of the new birth. And they all end with the cry for Christ's returning.
I really don't need any more new versions, but I'll probably buy the next one that comes out. Maybe someday I'll find so
mething sufficiently different to justify the expense. But I haven't up to now. To echo Tozer's last phrase... neither have I
and I sometimes tease the users of other versions by saying "I am using the KJV. This is just a temporary measure... un
til I can find something better". I'll start some of my reasons in my next post.
*A W Tozer uses both titles for the same version; The Authorized Version and The King James Version.
Re: Why would anybody still use the KJV?, on: 2006/1/26 15:59
It's always an uncomfortable situation to be at odds with a man of God like Tozer. I suppose I can agree with what he wr
ote in that there have been no modern versions that compare to the KJV.
The problem with this article is that he seems to either be ignorant of the facts, or ignoring the facts. Fact is the modern
version movement (which began in 1881) uses a completely different school of manuscripts from almost all versions pre
vious to 1881. The differences between the two schools is astronomical.
He also praises translators of new versions for at least trying. Which ones? Wescott & Hort, and the Unitarians that were
involved in starting the whole thing?
Page 2/104
Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
Modern Versions are not simply the Bible put in modern language. That is deception. But that's what the publi$her$ want
us to think.
I love Tozer... what a wealth of knowledge he left for us. But I don't share his opinion on this topic.
Krispy
Re: Why would anybody still use the KJV? - posted by CJaKfOrEsT (), on: 2006/1/26 17:25
Quote:
-------------------------
philologos wrote:
A W Tozer uses both titles for the same version; The Authorized Version and The King James Version.
-------------------------
Sounds a bit like Leonard Ravenhill reading from the NIV (Never Improved Version, AKA - KJV).
I like you find myself unable to decide which side to take in the KJV only debate, as I find myself wanting to argue agains
t everyone (what was that verse about "contentions" again:-P). For me, it's not so much a matter of accuracy in translatio
n, as accuracy in language. Like Tozer, I get a bit confused when reading the Amplified version, and find myself frustrate
d with preachers who insist on using it (I even heard a sermon delivered at an evangelistic outreach using the Amp) and
confusing their hearers no end. I find that the KJV holds more "shades of meaning" due to the accuracy of language.
One passage that illustrates this well is John 3, particularly vv2-3:
Quote:
-------------------------
2 Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher sent from God, for no man can do the miracles that thou doest except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
-------------------------
I once heard Greg Laurie expound this discourse using a newer translation. He pointed out, that Nichodemus' use of "we
" instead of "I" reminded him of the people who start asking for advise by begining with, "A friend of mine has this proble
m..." Nichodemus was speaking a a Pharisee, not an individual. The thing that is lost in modern translations, is that Jesu
s' response is to Nichodemus as an individual.
Consider also v7:
Quote:
-------------------------
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
-------------------------
This is where we really see an separation between Nichodemus and the Pharisees, in Jesus' words. In response to Nich
odemus' "How can a man be born when he is old?..", Jesus responds by clarifying. He isn't saying that Nichodemus nee
ds to be born again, as much as that all the Pharisees (even perhaps all humanity) need to be born again in order to see
the kingdom of God.
While this is only scratching the surface of this passage, my purpose for raising it, is to highlight something that is misse
d by removing "thee/thou" from the language, and replcing it with "you". These days it would be bad English to say "yous
", when refering to a group of people, instead of "you". Well, once upon a time, it would have been bad English to use "y
ou", when refering to an individual, instead of "thou". It's not that hard to grasp either. We use these rules all the time, wh
en you consider comparing "I" with "we" and "me" with "us". Well al you need to do is compare "thou" with "I" as you com
pare "ye" with "we". And then "thee" with "me" and "you" with "us". Confused? That's okay, theirs always the modern tra
nslations until you get it.
Granted I am oversimplifying things here, but I would much rather read a translation that one can readinly assertain the
meaning of the English word used, without the confusion that the varying degrees of slang and sarcasm create.
Page 3/104
Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
But hey, that's just me.:-)
Re:, on: 2006/1/26 17:38
Good posts.
The clincher here for me was "The Comparative Charts" out there.
I always compare whatever I'm reading to the Greek or whatever, so I've stayed with KJ for that and other reasons also..
..
Learning more about the minds of Westcott & Hort, and then what the different "Versions" of God's Word has done to th
e Church in general....
But mostly... Look for and find the Comparative Charts ... they opened my eyes so wide, I thought they'd fall out of their
place. Wow !!!
I'm not in the Ruckmanite camp, but "linguistically", the KJ can't be topped, and only true comparative analysis can prov
e that out and not just opinion or the "easier to read" reasoning.
I did read the NIV for 9 years, and before that other versions.
Went back to KJ in the 1980's for the reasons above.
Thanks for the thread RonB.
Annie
Re: All quiet on the Western Front? - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/1/27 13:27
The are two main issues as work in the creation of a version of the scriptures; the manuscript evidence and the
philosophy of translation. Let's introduce them one at a time and I will concentrate on the New Testament. I will try to
keep this fairly simple so that more folk can benefit from it.
1. The manuscript evidence.
We do not have any of the original documents. (these are usually called the autographs) In fact other than a few papyru
s scraps our earliest manuscripts (mss) come from the era 300-400 AD. There are thousands of later mss but as far as
I know there are not two which are identical. The question then is which is the most reliable and how do we make that d
ecision? The scholars who work on this problem are known as Textual Critics and their studies are sometimes known a
s 'Lower Criticism'. (This must be distinguished from the rationalist 'Higher Criticism' of theologians who did not believe t
hat they were handling the word of God and were out to prove their case) Originally all 'Textual Critics' believed they we
re handling the word of God and genuinely wanted to get back to the original, or as close to it as possible.
The earlier 'textual critics' were men like Jerome(c390 AD) and Erasmus (1516 AD). If they had two manuscripts which
differed they tried to discover which was authentic. Let's introduce a little logic to illustrate my point. If two statements pu
rporting to be genuine words of the Scripture differ they cannot both be right, although they can both be wrong. (think ab
out it. ;-)) The modern story of textual criticism begins with Erasmus not with Westcott and Hort. Erasmus was a famou
s renaissance scholar. He never became part of the Reformation and remained a loyal Catholic (he is sometimes descri
bed as 'once born') but his work was used by Martin Luther and William Tyndale. Erasmus used up to seven different m
anuscripts with variations in the text. He only had one copy of the Revelation and that had holes in it. Using these man
uscripts Erasmus tried to construct what he believed the original 'autographs' had recorded. He created 'an eclectic' text
ie a text which did not exist anyone in a single document. This provides us with an early caution when discussing Bible t
exts and translations. We often hear the phrase 'the Greek text'. There is really no such thing as "the Greek text". For t
he record, about 80% of the all ancient New Testament manuscripts agree as to what the 'autographs' said. The variatio
ns are usually of very little significance, occasional variants in spelling and the order of words. It is usually said that ever
y orthodox doctrine of Christianity can be constructed from any one varient families. BUT here and there are differences
which some believe have a deeper significance.
That mention of 'families' deserves an explanation. When 'textual' scholars examine the variations in detail they someti
mes find that different manuscripts agree with each other even though they may disagree with many other manuscripts.
They conclude that this shows us links between those mss which agree. These groups are then called 'families' of mss.
Erasmus' 7 mss were all from the same 'family'. This family likeness of Erasmus' mss is usually described as the 'Byzan
Page 4/104
Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
tine Textform'. Byzantium (Instanbul now) seems to have been the centre for these 'similar' manuscripts. Erasmus did n
ot FIND the original Greek text, he attempted to reconstruct it from several sources. People who do what Erasmus did a
re called 'editors' in the study of textual criticism. There have been several 'editors' down through the years eg Erasmus
1516, Stephens 1550, and Beza 1598 and Elzevir 1624. It was Elzevir who used the phrase 'the received text' to descri
be the Byzantine Textform family although the term is now used more widely. Again we must stress that there is no sing
le 'Byzantine Greek text' and the 'received text' is NOT a mss but the work of editors who used many mss. Other 'family
textforms' were known but Erasmus and those who followed him did not have the same confidence in them as they had i
n the Byzantine Textform/Received Text.
That 'eclectic' (gathered from many) text originally produced by Erasmus and then modified by the other editors became
the foundation for early translations into eg German and English bibles. Luther used it and so did Tyndale. So did the tr
anslators of the KJV. If those who believe the Received Text (Byzantine Textform) is the most reliable are right then the
starting point of Luther's, Tyndale's and the KJV translators is a good foundation. They still have to work out their philos
ophy of translation but they would seem to be starting from the right place. If, as some believe, the Byzantine Textform i
s not the most reliable, then what?
Towards the end of the 1800s a group of men decided that it was time to 'revise' the KJV. There work resulted in the En
glish 'Revised Version' of 1881. They were a mix of scholars and included some passionate advocates of the Received
Text and the KJV. One great KJV supporter was a man named Scriviner. He was a highly regarded scholar, pro KJV, a
nd on the Revision Committee. An American committee worked on the same task and produced their own 'Revision' whi
ch is very similar to the English RV and is known as the ASV. The ASV is widely available in just about any kind of bible
software you are likely to be using. I will say more about their 'philosophy of translation' in a later post but the reason th
ey caused so much friction was that both committees were convinced that another 'family' of mss was more reliable than
the Byzantine/Received Text. The were conflicts within the committees and people like Scrivener fought their corner wel
l but in the end the prevailing view was that a group of manuscripts (mss) identified as the 'Western' family (this is Weste
rn as starting from Alexandria not Texas!!) In particular they laid heavy dependence on two ancient mss called 'codices'
(in a book shape rather than rolled up papyrii) these two documents now venerated or demonized by different scholars a
re the Codex Vaticanus (so called because it was held in the Vatican library) and the Codex Sinaiticus (not a nasal spray
for head colds ;-).. well this is pretty heavy going stuff, you deserve a little light relief) so called because it was found in a
waste-paper basket in St Catherine's Monastry in Sinai. The main spokesmen for the English RV revisions committee w
ere two men; Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort developed a theory of the way in which the text had been transmitte
d down the centuries. Their theory 'won the day' and became the prevailing scholastic view.
I will pause and try to answer any question before moving on to the 'philosophy' of translation issue. This is a very simpli
stic history of what took place but the consequence is that differences between the KJV and the RV(ASV) are not the res
ult of poor translators. The translators were very good at the job of translating. The problem arises because of the starti
ng point of the underlying Greek text. If you were to draw a line from left to right and put the Received Text at the left en
d and the Western Text at the right end. The KJV would be over on the left and the RV(ASV) would be way over on the
right. Since 1881 every new translation could be placed somewhere between those two extremities. The New America
n Standard Version would still be well over to the right but the NIV and the Good News bible would be further towards th
e left but not reaching the KJV. What this means is that subsequent 'editors' who have created new 'eclectic' texts have
modified the extreme position held by Westcott and Hort. Even in the NIV and the Good News Bible the Received Text/
Byzantine Textform has made a bit of a comeback. But it has to be said that the majority of academic scholars, even ev
angelical scholars, are still not convinced about the faithfulness of the Byzantine Textform. Many evangelicals are still c
onvinced that the Western 'family' is a more reliable witness.
What are the likes of you and me to say at such a time? Well...?
Re: - posted by PreachParsly (), on: 2006/1/27 13:52
Quote:
-------------------------(this is Western as starting from Alexandria not Texas!!)
-------------------------
You mean there really is life outside of the United States? :-P
Page 5/104
Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
Re: - posted by RobertW (), on: 2006/1/27 16:21
Hi Ron,
Is their any consensus on why there are variations between manuscripts? Is it error on the part of the copyists or additio
ns and subtractions?
Thanks,
-Robert
Re: - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/1/27 17:00
Robert W's
Quote:
-------------------------Is it error on the part of the copyists or additions and subtractions?
-------------------------
Consensus? I think probably most would say that there have been aspects of all three at different times and degrees.
Re: - posted by Christinyou (), on: 2006/1/27 21:29
One small thought, if you were wanting to copy the best and the one that was outselling all others, which book would yo
u try to put in a light that it was outdated and needed updating so you would have a better understanding of what the Aut
hor was saying. All along changing what the Author was saying, just for profits sake, for Mammon to increase his lies th
at were from the beginning, that is the difference between God and Mammon.
In Christ: Phillip
Re: - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/1/28 10:08
Christinyou,
I not personally 'sold' on the idea of a 'conspiracy' on this matter although I know many are.
for further reading - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/1/28 10:19
In trying to be simple I think I have erred on the side of the simplistic in the last main post. For quick explanations of the
different manuscript families, wikipedia is not a bad place to start. Just click for more accurate information.
1. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type) Byzantine textform.
2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type) Alexandrian textform
3. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_text-type) Western textform
4. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarean_text-type) Caesarian textform
5. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) Textus Receptus (the Received Text)
Re: Bibles anyone?, on: 2006/1/28 12:16
Don't mean to get off topic, But I have small pocket size bibles, a couple of medium size bibles that I have literally laying
around. If anyone would like me to send them to you for your outreach purposes, I would be happy to free of charge ship
ping to North Americans, overseas I can only send one. If your a KJV only person, I don't want to send them to you, only
to have them for a burning session. Some are KJV, Gideon, Living, etc.. PM me. Thanks.
MOD: if this is soliciting please let me know, I will edit and replace with whats on topic. Thanks
Re: - posted by Christinyou (), on: 2006/1/28 13:37
Hi Ron,
I don't believe that a conspiracy is what is going on with the Word. Conspiracy takes a hidden agenda and someone be
hind the scenes accomplishing a take over, or at least propaganda to change a situation or plan to fit the conspirator's wi
ll.
I think God allows this just like He allows evil and put it in the works when His plan was designed that we might see the t
ruth of what the difference is when it comes to Good and evil and what the cost is if we choose evil over good, that is Sat
Page 6/104
Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
an over God.
I believe the Word of God is completely under His control and protection, and only He allows the counterfeit that the real
thing is what we study and use as the truth. How do you detect a counterfeit, simply by knowing the real thing and the c
ounterfeit won't stand up to the real thing.
We know Satan's deception and lies and counterfeit is flooding the world and still there are true conversions and turning
to the truth and Christ and The Father. Satan's alternate plan from the Plan of God has always been Satan's agenda fro
m the beginning, I guess you could call it a conspiracy, but it will only work if God allows it to show the truth of God's pla
n in Christ Jesus which was before the foundation of the world and before man was ever put into the equation Christ in y
ou the Hope of Glory.
Ephesians 2:7-8 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us th
rough Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing
s in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we shoul
d be holy and without blame before Him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
IN Christ: Phillip
Re: for philologos - posted by BeYeDoers (), on: 2006/2/4 17:02
Ron, do you prefer the KJV because you feel the Byzantine texts are more reliable, or is it just a matter of tradition and t
he simple fact that you enjoy it more due to the beauty of Elizabethan English? Also, have you written anything in defens
e of the KJV that you could disclose?
Re: - posted by markm, on: 2006/2/4 22:28
Quote:
-------------------------Let a man study prayerfully any of the generally recognized versions, done by proficient and responsible scholars, and the Spirit will
quicken the truth to his heart and lead him toward the ends God has in view for him. Almost everything depends upon his response to the Spirit's worki
ngs. While it is important that the translations be accurate and faithful, yet better versions do not make better men.
-------------------------
What makes the word of God living and active? The translators? The manuscripts?
Re: Why would anyone still use the KJV?, on: 2006/2/5 10:14
Quote:
-------------------------What makes the word of God living and active?
-------------------------
Hi markm,
There are answers to this question in abundance, in the thread 'Born Again By What Means', (still active in this forum).
Best for you to start at the beginning of it, as it's well-focused there.
As to the other two questions about translators and manuscripts, that thread doesn't touch on them; but, my own comme
nt, (not having done the study many others have), is that once one is born again, one can tell whether the translators kn
ew the Lord, or were working without insight from Him. This is abundantly clear, when comparing simple Tyndale - a ma
n who translated scripture knowing he would probably die for doing so (That's passion!) - with what has come after. (OK
, I know that's a sweeping generalisation...... Young also captures God's heart, despite the bumpiness of the English pro
se.)
Page 7/104
Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
Re: - posted by Clutch (), on: 2006/2/5 18:29
Hi Ya'll,
In 1978 when I was newly born again, I asked my pastor (Steve Byrd, Berean Baptist Church, Fayetteville, NC) which tra
nslation of the Bible I should use?
He gave me this sage advice, which I have passed on to others throughout the years.
He said: "Howard, There's enough salvation in John 3:16 for the whole world. I personally prefer and use the King Jame
s version, but the best translation of the Bible, is the one that you'll read."
I (Clutch)read the AV the most, but use other modern translations, and paraphrases for emphasis.After all, I am a simple
man, and when you find something that works for you.....stay with it. 8-)
Blessings,
Clutch
Re: Why would anybody still use the KJV? - posted by grod95, on: 2006/2/5 19:57
...for good reason, it is a reliable translation. The whole translation debate is quite wearisome. I am certainly not of the
kjv-only camp. The information emerging from this camp is unedifying and misinformative. The NIV is good if you want
a good thought-for-thought translation. The KJV and particularly the NASB Update are good word-for-word or literal tran
slations of scripture. For the most part, none of us are Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic scholars. Threre is no need to split
hairs over such matters. Christ is coming brothers and sisters. We ought to prepare ourselves for His second Advent. :-
)
Re: Why would anybody still use the KJV? - posted by TaKa (), on: 2006/2/5 20:49
There is a verse in the King James Version that troubles me:
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
When I read this, I think to myself: Why would I want to read a Bible that calls God an "it".
Our great creeds say that the Holy Spirit is God.
Re: - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/2/9 15:49
BeYeDoers
Quote:
-------------------------Ron, do you prefer the KJV because you feel the Byzantine texts are more reliable, or is it just a matter of tradition and the simple fa
ct that you enjoy it more due to the beauty of Elizabethan English? Also, have you written anything in defense of the KJV that you could disclose?
-------------------------
My apologies for taking so long to get back to this. To answer the last question first... yes, and I will get to them soon...
I promise.
As to the first question... I do have more confidence in the Byzantine Textform and am particularly 'annoyed' about the ill
ogic of Westcott and Hort's theories of textual transmission. I think if I had been in their lectures I might have found mys
elf on my feet crying 'look at the king... he's not wearing any clothes'. ;-)
As to the second part of the first question ;-) The KJV is actually formal Jacobean rather than Elizabethan. The languag
e was a little archaic even in 1611. 'Thee' and 'thou' was already passed from ordinary speech so the KJV was always a
bit formal and 'grand'. Part of its specification was to produce a thing of beauty; this is not always helpful although it may
sound pleasant. The Greek of the NT was not 'beautiful classical Greek' but was Koine (common - market place) Greek.
It is the truth which is beautiful and powerful rather than the linguistic style. The Message bible is hammered by most p
eople but it has a point when it says that Koine Greek was 'the word on the street' rather than the flowing oratory of the a
cademics.
The KJV is more 'beautiful' than Tyndale which can be a bit rugged, but they did sharpen some of Tyndale's language a l
ittle in the KJV. The KJV translators were slightly more 'literal equivalence' than Tyndale.
Page 8/104
Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
more soon...
Re: - posted by RobertW (), on: 2006/2/9 18:15
Quote:
------------------------- I think if I had been in their lectures I might have found myself on my feet crying 'look at the king... he's not wearing any clothes'.
-------------------------
Hmmm. This must be another of those cliches' that just never made it to my part of the world. :-P
Re: - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/2/9 18:44
Quote:
-------------------------This must be another of those cliches' that just never made it to my part of the world.
-------------------------
Really, Danny Kaye, Hans Christian Anderson? A foolish king was scammed by a sharp tailor who told him that he had i
nvented a super light cloth and that he could make the king a suit of clothes. The tailor told the king that the clothes coul
d only be seen by intelligent people. He persuaded the king to wear the non-existent suit and explained to the courtiers t
hat only intelligent people could see it. The whole court, of course, claimed that they could see it and that it was a beauti
ful suit of clothes.
A small boy had not heard the propaganda and when he saw the king he exclaimed (in the Danny Kaye version)
Look at the king, look at the king
The king is in his al-together, he's altogeth as naked as the day that he was born...
The phrase as I used it was my way of 'calling the bluff' of Westcott and Hort and saying 'your theory is unfounded'.. The
problem with 'textual criticism' is that only the very intelligent can understand it!
Do I understand it? Of course. :-?
Here's the official version; (http://www.angelfire.com/film/dannykaye/KingsClothes.htm) Click Here.
Re: - posted by philologos (), on: 2006/2/10 9:47
Quote:
-------------------------The are two main issues as work in the creation of a version of the scriptures; the manuscript evidence and the philosophy of transl
ation. Let's introduce them one at a time and I will concentrate on the New Testament. I will try to keep this fairly simple so that more folk can benefit fr
om it.
1. The manuscript evidence.
We do not have any of the original documents. (these are usually called the autographs) In fact other than a few papyrus scraps our earliest manuscrip
ts (mss) come from the era 300-400 AD. There are thousands of later mss...
-------------------------
Let's move on to the second issue, although we really only touched the first...
2. The Philosophy of Translation
Once we have decided on the actual text we are going to translate we then have the problem of how we are going to tra
nslate it.
Let me show the problem by reference to two stories and a quote from a book.
Story 1. The Wycliffe Bible translators were at work in Papua New Guinea. In their first steps they usually translate so
me saying of Jesus. One of the chosen sayings was “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give
him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” (Luke 11:11 KJVS)Simple question? Well it migh
t have been except that the PNG tribe into whose language this saying was translated immediately said 'Yes!'. Woah, s
Page 9/104
Scriptures and Doctrine :: Why would anybody still use the KJV?
aid the missionary, wrong answer...
Explanation? The area of PNG where the translators were working was very hilly and the streams were fast flowing mo
untain streams; there were no lakes, or seas. The consequence was that the fish from the stream were skinny, boney, t
hings which were no good for man nor beast. But snake on the other hand is a major source of protein and nutrition. So
... if your son asked you for a fish would you give him a snake? Of course you would, if you could.
Ah, you say, you just have to translate it 'living poisonous snake' but if you do you have just 'added' to the inspired script
ure. ;-)
Story 2. The Wycliffe Bible translators were at work among tribal peoples in Brazil. They too were translating some bas
ic sayings of Jesus into the tribal language. Their problem arose from “I am the living bread which came down from he
aven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the
life of the world.” (John 6:51 KJVS) The first problem, of course, was the society in which they were working had absol
utely no concept of bread. Well, reasoned the translators, we just substitute the major staple of the local diet; manioc.
This is where the 2nd problem arose. The particular tribe divided all life into two simple categories; living and cooked. E
very plant and creature was either living or cooked; there were no other options. To get the 'living bread' combination th
e only way was to refer to 'uncooked manioc'. The problem is that uncooked 'bitter' manioc is poisonous. ;-)
Any solution to the problems raised here will result in a translation which is 'dynamic' rather than 'literal'. Translations th
en will have a 'philosophy of translation' which will lie somewhere within the spectrum of absolutely literal, or extremely d
ynamic. Some Si-ers will be familiar with The Message. It is a translation which adopts the philosophy of 'dynamic equi
valence'. This is The Golden Verse:1"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. A
nd this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. John 3:1
6 - The Message Disgraceful cries the crowd. ;-) OK, let's go to the other extreme, 'literal equivalence'."For so loved the
God the world that the Son his the only begotten he gave that each the one believing towards him not may perish but ha
ve life eternal - John 3:16 word for word translation Now if you were called to the bedside of a dying man which option w
ould you go for?
But 'dynamic equivalence' is not without its problems either. This is an excerpt from The English Bible & its Origins: Rich
ard Purkis Angel Press 1988 isbn 0-947785-23-X page 56 in which he describes the difficulties of a bible translator....
and quotes with approval the philosophy behind modern Bible translationDynamic Equivalence
Modern translators of the Bible have worked out a very simple (but certainly not easy) method called Dynamic Equival
ence. It works like this:
A. Original word/phrase (Greek/Hebrew)
B. All the ideas which this contains
C. Those ideas translated into the other language
D. The best word or phrase to convey the main idea of the original
Let's take the example with with we opened the chapter
A. Original Words (Greek, Luke 18:13)
etypten (he beat)
eis (on) sic
to stethos (the breast)
autou (of himself
B. Ideas behind those words
1. he was sorry for what he had done.
2. he showed that sorrow in an action
3. he hit himself to prove that he wanted to punish and change himself
4. he hit himself over his heart (which throughout the Bible represents the understanding).
Page 10/104