# Will there ever be another TR version in English?



## 3John2 (Feb 23, 2007)

Anyone? also other than the KJV which other versions use the TR in English?


----------



## Davidius (Feb 23, 2007)

This is something I've been wondering as well. Would it be possible for scholars of one particular confessional stance to come together and do a translation of the TR for, say, Presbtyerians and Reformed congregations in modern english?


----------



## Kaalvenist (Feb 23, 2007)

3John2 said:


> Anyone? also other than the KJV which other versions use the TR in English?


It's my understanding that the NKJV follows the TR, making only certain translations significantly different from the AV (not because of texts, but for other reasons) -- some good, some not as good. It's only in sidenotes, outside of the main text, that you can see where the "other" textual traditions differ from the TR underlying the main text.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 23, 2007)

Well, concerning TR-based translations in modern English, there is the 1599 Geneva Bible (2006); the New King James Version (1982) (deviates from the TR in many places, I believe); Modern King James Version; 21st Century King James Version (1994); and the Updated King James Version (2000). There may be more. Hope this helps.


----------



## 3John2 (Feb 23, 2007)

It WOULD be very nice to see someone from a Reformed perspective put one out. It would have have been nice if the ESV people would have done that with the TR. As for the NKJV I thought that is was based on the Majority text, correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but it is NOT exactly the same as the TR is it? I DO use a KJV but I was just curious. What about the Youngs?


----------



## bookslover (Mar 2, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Well, concerning TR-based translations in modern English, there is the 1599 Geneva Bible (2006);...



He said MODERN English, bub!


----------



## KMK (Mar 2, 2007)

I think your question assumes that there is a *need *for an English translation in modern English. I disagree. Elizabethan English is superior to modern English. It's like asking if there will ever be any translations of Shakespeare into modern English. Yes, there are. But why bother?


----------



## MW (Mar 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> I think your question assumes that there is a *need *for an English translation in modern English. I disagree. Elizabethan English is superior to modern English. It's like asking if there will ever be any translations of Shakespeare into modern English. Yes, there are. But why bother?



That's priceless! Recently our prime minister bemoaned the fact that Australian education is producing illiterate people and strongly suggested a curriculum which taught the classics, including Shakespeare, in order to teach English better. Not too long ago there was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald from the Professor of English at Sydney University, which insisted that the study of Shakespeare and the King James Bible are necessary for a proper grasp of the English language.


----------



## MW (Mar 2, 2007)

This reminds me of a quotation from Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language and a Culture: "Without the King James Bible, there would have been no 'Paradise Lost,' no 'Pilgrim's Progress,' no Handel's 'Messiah,' no Negro spirituals and no Gettysburg Address. These and innumerable other works were inspired by the language of the Bible."


----------



## daveb (Mar 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> I think your question assumes that there is a *need *for an English translation in modern English. I disagree. Elizabethan English is superior to modern English. It's like asking if there will ever be any translations of Shakespeare into modern English. Yes, there are. But why bother?


----------



## S. Spence (Mar 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted by KMK
> I think your question assumes that there is a need for an English translation in modern English. I disagree. Elizabethan English is superior to modern English. It's like asking if there will ever be any translations of Shakespeare into modern English. Yes, there are. But why bother?



I think there is a significant difference between the KJV and the works of Shakespeare. Shakespeare's plays are original works, we can read them today (and with a little help) understand them. 
Do we need to TRANSLATE them? No because they were written in English. 
However the KJV is a TRANSLATION, it's quite a good one but it is still only a translation. Therefore I don't have a problem with someone going back to existing manuscripts and trying to produce a faithful translation in more modern English, as I personally I’m not that good with Greek.


----------



## Theoretical (Mar 2, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> I think there is a significant difference between the KJV and the works of Shakespeare. Shakespeare's plays are original works, we can read them today (and with a little help) understand them.
> Do we need to TRANSLATE them? No because they were written in English.
> However the KJV is a TRANSLATION, it's quite a good one but it is still only a translation. Therefore I don't have a problem with someone going back to existing manuscripts and trying to produce a faithful translation in more modern English, as I personally I’m not that good with Greek.


I think what is being said is that KJV English has a higher sophistication and is significantly more nuanced than modern English, and that as such, it may be somewhat harder to understand, but it affords greater translation precision.


----------



## S. Spence (Mar 2, 2007)

> I think what is being said is that KJV English has a higher sophistication and is significantly more nuanced than modern English, and that as such, it may be somewhat harder to understand, but it affords greater translation precision.



I don't have a problem with that; Elizabethan English is more sophisticated in that it allows us to differentiate between ‘you’ plural and singular etc. 

But I do think its important also to realise that English is dynamic and certain words have changed in their meaning significantly over the centuries, which if not understood can affect one's view of doctrine, e.g.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 (King James Version)

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not *prevent* them which are asleep.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 (English Standard Version)


For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[a] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not *precede* those who have fallen asleep.

I’m not trying to be pushy; I just thought it was worth pointing out.


----------



## caddy (Mar 2, 2007)

Excellent Point !  



KMK said:


> I think your question assumes that there is a *need *for an English translation in modern English. I disagree. Elizabethan English is superior to modern English. It's like asking if there will ever be any translations of Shakespeare into modern English. Yes, there are. But why bother?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 2, 2007)

3John2 said:


> It WOULD be very nice to see someone from a Reformed perspective put one out. It would have have been nice if the ESV people would have done that with the TR. As for the NKJV I thought that is was based on the Majority text, correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am) but it is NOT exactly the same as the TR is it? I DO use a KJV but I was just curious. What about the Youngs?



The NKJV is based on the TR but it also includes footnotes where the other criticial texts deviate or when other translations are possible.


----------



## KMK (Mar 2, 2007)

*Modern English is da-bomb!*

Modern English is *da-bomb*. That old English *sucks*. Shakespeare was *tight*, ya know, but all those thees and thous are *jacked*. *Dude *was seriously *blowin' it out the box *with some of them sonnets. I know my *brothers* could *get down with it *if someone all educated and that could *lay it down *in modern English! 

Is there a 'tongue-in-cheek' emoticon?


----------



## Archlute (Mar 2, 2007)

One of my language profs made an insightful comment regarding this whole discussion. He pointed out that in debates about what constitutes an appropriate English translation, it is often forgotten by those of the "we need a superior English style" camp, that the original languages used were not the lofty language of the court of their own day. The Greek of the NT is far removed from the sophistication of Classical Greek literature, and apart from the poetic/prophetic sections, much of the OT Hebrew is just standard prose with nothing special about its style. To try and impose the necessity of a refined English upon the translated text is not reflective of the style that the original readers/hearers would have heard in their own language. If Scriptures were written so that a commoner of the day could understand them (at least grammatically and stylistically, not necessarily theologically at all points), then it may be argued that translating them at a higher level of required reading proficiency is opposed to the intent for which they had originally been written. I'm not settled on it myself, but I've always thought that those were insightful remarks.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 2, 2007)

Changes in interpretation occur even between the old KJV and the NKJV. Back when the _Prayer of Jabez_ fiasco was going on, I noticed the difference between the two in 1 Chronicles 4:10.

KJV:
And Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that thine hand might be with me, and that thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me! And God granted him that which he requested. 

NKJV:
And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, “Oh, that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that You would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain!” So God granted him what he requested.

I looked up the verse in every modern translation I could find and all except the NKJV agree with the KJV—that is, that Jabez was praying to not be harmed rather than to avoid harming others.

The funny thing was that the thesis of the _Jabez_ book relied largely on the NKJV rendering. Alas, the problems that stem from interpretative translation!


----------



## Davidius (Mar 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> Modern English is *da-bomb*. That old English *sucks*. Shakespeare was *tight*, ya know, but all those thees and thous are *jacked*. *Dude *was seriously *blowin' it out the box *with some of them sonnets. I know my *brothers* could *get down with it *if someone all educated and that could *lay it down *in modern English!
> 
> Is there a 'tongue-in-cheek' emoticon?



I like to say that sort of thing when people talk about how "difficult" and "archaic" the KJV is. Most people don't speak in the gramatically correct "modern" English found in the newer translations, either. Should we make a bible for every spoken dialect in the US? If we really want to make them easy to read, we should also include the most common grammatical mistakes.


----------



## KMK (Mar 2, 2007)

A 'fiasco' is a good term.

Arguments concerning translations aside, there is evidence to support my position that instead of changing the KJV to adapt to modern English, we should adapt modern English back to the English of the KJV. Consider...



> Looking back, abundant data exist from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts to show that by 1840 the incidence of complex literacy in the United States was between 93 and 100 percent wherever such a thing mattered. According to the Connecticut census of 1840, only one citizen out of every 579 was illiterate and you probably don’t want to know, not really, what people in those days considered literate; it’s too embarrassing. Popular novels of the period give a clue: Last of the Mohicans, published in 1826, sold so well that a contemporary equivalent would have to move 10 million copies to match it. If you pick up an uncut version you find yourself in a dense thicket of philosophy, history, culture, manners, politics, geography, analysis of human motives and actions, all conveyed in data-rich periodic sentences so formidable only a determined and well-educated reader can handle it nowadays. Yet in 1818 we were a small-farm nation without colleges or universities to speak of. Could those simple folk have had more complex minds than our own?
> 
> By 1940, the literacy figure for all states stood at 96 percent for whites, 80 percent for blacks. Notice that for all the disadvantages blacks labored under, four of five were nevertheless literate. Six decades later, at the end of the twentieth century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can’t read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled. Before you think of anything else in regard to these numbers, think of this: we spend three to four times as much real money on schooling as we did sixty years ago, but sixty years ago virtually everyone, black or white, could read.
> 
> From the Odysseus Group, a pro homeschooling website



And this...



> While some people might wonder exactly what literacy entailed during the early Nineteenth Century, anecdotal evidence points to a highly educated and refined populace. In his book Separating School and State, Sheldon Richman gives a variety of examples of the sophisticated nature of America's readers. Thomas Paine's Common Sense sold 120,000 copies to a population of three million—the equivalent of ten million copies in the 1990s. Noah Webster's Spelling Bee sold five million copies to a population of less than twenty million in 1818. Walter Scott's novels sold the same number between 1813 and 1823—the equivalent of sixty million copies in the 1990s. James Fenimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans also sold millions of copies. Scott and Cooper are certainly not written on today's fourth-grade level. Travelers to America during the period such as Alexis de Tocqueville and Pierre du Pont were amazed at the education of Americans. The reading public of Victorian England is so famous that numerous books and college literature courses are devoted to the subject. In fact, England eventually passed a paper tax to quell a public the leaders felt was too smart.
> 
> From "Free" Education and Literacy
> 
> ...



Why was there greater literacy in the US in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries?



> The New England Primer, first published about 1690, combined lessons in spelling with a short catechism and versified injunctions to piety and faith in Calvinistic fundamentals. Crude couplets and woodcut pictures illustrated the alphabet, and the child's prayer that begins "Now I lay me down to sleep" first appeared in this book. The primer fulfilled the purposes of EDUCATION in New England, *where Puritan colonists stressed literacy as conducive to scriptural study*. For about fifty years, this eighty-page booklet, four and a half by three inches in size, was the only elementary textbook in America, and for a century more it held a central place in primary education.
> 
> From the Encyclopedia of American History



Our nation had a high level of literacy because of the underlying paradigm (propogated, no doubt, by Presbyterians  ) that children should be taught to read the KJV! Why don't we do that instead of changing the Bible?


----------



## Davidius (Mar 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> Arguments concerning translations aside, there is evidence to support my position that instead of changing the KJV to adapt to modern English, we should adapt modern English back to the English of the KJV. Consider...
> 
> And this...
> 
> ...



 This is great stuff!


----------



## KMK (Mar 2, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I like to say that sort of thing when peopel talk about how "difficult" and "archaic" the KJV is. Most people don't speak in the gramatically correct "modern" English found in the newer translations, either. Should we make a bible for every spoken dialect in the US? If we really want to make them easy to read, we should also include the most common grammatical mistakes.



Howard King sarcastically painted a word picture of a website in the not too distant future where an individual could input information concerning their age, sex, demographics, social status, economics etc. etc. and the website would spit out a Bible 'perfectly suited' to that individual. Isn't that where we are headed if we follow the argument that the Bible has to speak exactly the same as everyone in your neighborhood speaks?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 2, 2007)

Here's an interesting difference from the book od Proverbs:

Pro 19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction [that causeth] to err from the words of knowledge. KJV


27 Cease listening to instruction, my son,
And you will stray from the words of knowledge.NKJV


----------



## KMK (Mar 2, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Here's an interesting difference from the book od Proverbs:
> 
> Pro 19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction [that causeth] to err from the words of knowledge. KJV
> 
> ...



Interesting!

What Bible does an old fashioned 1646 man use primarily?


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 2, 2007)

3John2 said:


> Anyone? also other than the KJV which other versions use the TR in English?



None worth considering



Ok so I am biased. Seriously, I think you could try this


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> Our nation had a high level of literacy because of the underlying paradigm (propogated, no doubt, by Presbyterians  ) that children should be taught to read the KJV! Why don't we do that instead of changing the Bible?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Mar 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> Interesting!
> 
> What Bible does an old fashioned 1646 man use primarily?




The A.V. of course. A goatskin Cambridge presentation edition!
However, I did read the NKJV through last year.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 2, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> The A.V. of course. A goatskin Cambridge presentation edition!



Good man! My own is by the Trinitarian Bible Society which incidently published a number of excellent articles on why the AV is the best!


----------



## Saiph (Mar 2, 2007)

Archlute said:


> One of my language profs made an insightful comment regarding this whole discussion. He pointed out that in debates about what constitutes an appropriate English translation, it is often forgotten by those of the "we need a superior English style" camp, that the original languages used were not the lofty language of the court of their own day. The Greek of the NT is far removed from the sophistication of Classical Greek literature, and apart from the poetic/prophetic sections, much of the OT Hebrew is just standard prose with nothing special about its style. To try and impose the necessity of a refined English upon the translated text is not reflective of the style that the original readers/hearers would have heard in their own language. If Scriptures were written so that a commoner of the day could understand them (at least grammatically and stylistically, not necessarily theologically at all points), then it may be argued that translating them at a higher level of required reading proficiency is opposed to the intent for which they had originally been written. I'm not settled on it myself, but I've always thought that those were insightful remarks.




This is exactly right on. Isaiah and Hebrews are the only books written in a lofty manner. The discoveries at Oxyrynchus and Ugarit reveal that the biblical languages were in the most common and unsophisticated vernacular.
Some of the rare greek words used in the N.T. thought to be invented by the Spirit, were found on torn up shopping lists and letters to friends in the style of post-it notes. As Tyndale said, every plough-boy should be able to read the scriptures. KJV ruined Tyndale's wonderful translation by taking the prose and turning it into obsequious royal english. KJV is not the english spoken in the streets of 17th century england by the common man.


----------



## Magma2 (Mar 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> T"Without the King James Bible, there would have been no 'Paradise Lost,' no 'Pilgrim's Progress,' no Handel's 'Messiah,' no Negro spirituals and no Gettysburg Address.



We most certainly could have done without one of those. Guess which one (and it's not Milton, Bunyan or Negro spirituals)?

You almost make the case for the vulgar language.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> This reminds me of a quotation from Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language and a Culture: "Without the King James Bible, there would have been no 'Paradise Lost,' no 'Pilgrim's Progress,' no Handel's 'Messiah,' no Negro spirituals and no Gettysburg Address. These and innumerable other works were inspired by the language of the Bible."



No _Paradise Lost_ without the KJV? That's a stretch...

C. S. Lewis delivered an address in 1950 on "The Literary Influence of the King James Bible" on subsequent English usage. His conclusion, after laying out the evidence in his address: Not much. And, remember, he was speaking in his capacity as an expert in medieval and renaissance literatures, and their cognate subjects.

The best translations are able to strike a balance between accuracy to the originals and readabillity in modern English. The KJV no longer strikes that balance. It was a great translation for it's day, but it's day was 400 years ago.


----------



## KMK (Mar 3, 2007)

bookslover said:


> No _Paradise Lost_ without the KJV? That's a stretch...
> 
> C. S. Lewis delivered an address in 1950 on "The Literary Influence of the King James Bible" on subsequent English usage. His conclusion, after laying out the evidence in his address: Not much. And, remember, he was speaking in his capacity as an expert in medieval and renaissance literatures, and their cognate subjects.
> 
> The best translations are able to strike a balance between accuracy to the originals and readabillity in modern English. The KJV no longer strikes that balance. It was a great translation for it's day, but it's day was 400 years ago.



And I anxiuosly await for the English speaking church to unite in creating a true 'standard' Modern English (whatever that is) Version. What will make it a true 'standard' is that it will be used by the large majority of English speakers. Wait a minute! Didn't we used to have that in the KJV? Didn't we as the English speaking church used to speak the same language? (The language of the KJV?) How about we all go back to the KJV until the English speaking church gets its act together and determines what 'Modern' English is.


----------



## Herald (Mar 3, 2007)

> Arguments concerning translations aside, there is evidence to support my position that instead of changing the KJV to adapt to modern English, we should adapt modern English back to the English of the KJV. Consider...



Ken - tell you what...why don't you blaze the path? Demand that your family speak the English of the KJV. Preach that way. Talk to you neighbors that way. Demand they talk to you that way. Come to think of it, post that way on the PB. I promise you, if society adopts KJV English as the language of choice, I will gladly jump on the bandwagon. 

My challenge to you, dear sir!

*throws down my glove*


----------



## JOwen (Mar 3, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This is something I've been wondering as well. Would it be possible for scholars of one particular confessional stance to come together and do a translation of the TR for, say, Presbtyerians and Reformed congregations in modern english?



Interesting. My own Free Reformed federation in the 2004-2005 Synod proposed a "soft revision" of the KJV by bringing together scholars from the Free Reformed, Heritage Reformed, Protestant Reformed, Free Church Continuing, Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Presbyterian Reformed Church, and a few others for editing purposes. It has been shelved for now.


----------



## KMK (Mar 3, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Ken - tell you what...why don't you blaze the path? Demand that your family speak the English of the KJV. Preach that way. Talk to you neighbors that way. Demand they talk to you that way. Come to think of it, post that way on the PB. I promise you, if society adopts KJV English as the language of choice, I will gladly jump on the bandwagon.
> 
> My challenge to you, dear sir!
> 
> *throws down my glove*



Well spoken... (Touche)  

After rereading my post, I realized I sounded like a 5 year old and have since edited it. Sorry for any offence to my NASB using brethren.

Look, I am a team player. (Hard to believe I am a Baptist  ) I believe that the blessings of unity for the English speaking church would out-weigh the 'problems' with the KJV. It is no doubt our disobedience that has brought about a confounding of our Biblical language. I would be all for a 'softening' of the KJV if the English speaking church got together and agreed upon one. I would even be proud to use the NASB if the church came to that concensus.

However, I disagree with the premise that everyone should have their own Bible version based on what 'kind' of English they prefer.

I also disagree with the premise that we as a church have no control over what is going on in our society and that we need to keep adapting to its fluctuations. 

C.S. Lewis may be correct in his belief that the KJV itself did not greatly impact literacy in England, but would anyone dare state that the 'New England Primer' and the 'Blue Back Speller' did not impact literacy in America for hundreds of years? These books were written to help home-schooled children grow up to be literate in the English of the KJV.

I also disagree with the premise that children in America today cannot be taught to be literate in the English of the KJV.

Disclaimer: I am not implying that anyone on PB holds to any of these premises! However, they are strongholds that exist in our churches.


----------



## George Bailey (Mar 3, 2007)

*Are we putting any obstacles in the way?*

Some people have a great struggle with trying to truly understand what the message is in Elizabethan English, myself included. However, since I've read the Bible in many versions, and am familiar with it, when I re-read those portions in the KJV or my newly acquired Geneva, I can understand them. 

However, for those that are young in the faith, or those who struggle with understanding, do we want to put an extra burden on them by forcing them to understand an archaic language style? Why?

We should remove obstacles to the message of the Word. That _doesn't_ mean changing the Word to match their "style", but we shouldn't add any requirements that aren't Biblically mandated. (and I'd like to see a Scripturally-based argument for anyone to use the KJV in our current culture).

Brian


----------



## bookslover (Mar 3, 2007)

KMK said:


> It is no doubt our disobedience that has brought about a confounding of our Biblical language.



To what would Christians have had to be disobedient in order to incur the "punishment" of proliferating translations of the Bible? Why is the fact that there are many translations of Scripture supposed to be "evil," or some kind of "punishment"? This statement makes no sense.

If the AV had been published in 1511 or 1711, the language would have been different yet from the 1611. If the AV had been published in 1711 (in which case it would have been the K_V, for King Whoever), then some Christians today would be protesting that we "need to adhere to the K_V Bible against all others". 

All living languages change - if they don't, they become dead languages, like Latin. Modern English is a perfectly acceptable language for the Bible to be translated in, just as Elizabethan English was in the AV's time - and just as modern German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Zuelchian are today (OK, I made that last one up). Languages are what they are, and Christians do themselves no favors by trying to insist that the only legitimate version of English for the Bible is Elizabethan or Jacobean English.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 3, 2007)

KMK said:


> I also disagree with the premise that children in America today cannot be taught to be literate in the English of the KJV.



Yeah, well, good luck with that - especially since there's absolutely no reason why modern American children _should_ become adept at Elizabethan English.

All this is about as ridiculous as when, in the 19th century, translators translated the early church fathers into - Elizabethan English, instead of what was then standard 19th century English! Arrgg...


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 3, 2007)

*I have got the solution!*

 

I know how to solve this whole problem!

Since learning new habits are easier than breaking old then learning new in replace of those old habits, we should all learn to speak a different vulgar tongue such as Spanish, French, or German. THEN, we simply are back to dealing with the Hebrew, Greek, and our new vulgar tongue that is conveniently without its antiquities.

English is such a complex and erratic language. Let’s just eliminate it from the equation.


----------



## Herald (Mar 3, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> I know how to solve this whole problem!
> 
> Since learning new habits are easier than breaking old then learning new in replace of those old habits, we should all learn to speak a different vulgar tongue such as Spanish, French, or German. THEN, we simply are back to dealing with the Hebrew, Greek, and our new vulgar tongue that is conveniently without its antiquities.
> 
> English is such a complex and erratic language. Let’s just eliminate it from the equation.



There's always latin.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 3, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> I know how to solve this whole problem!
> 
> Since learning new habits are easier than breaking old then learning new in replace of those old habits, we should all learn to speak a different vulgar tongue such as Spanish, French, or German. THEN, we simply are back to dealing with the Hebrew, Greek, and our new vulgar tongue that is conveniently without its antiquities.
> 
> English is such a complex and erratic language. Let’s just eliminate it from the equation.



Ich kann schon Deutsch also ich vermute, daß ich weniger Arbeit zu tun habe. 

But I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by our new vulgar tongue being without its antiquities.


----------



## satz (Mar 3, 2007)

Blueridge reformer said:


> Here's an interesting difference from the book od Proverbs:
> 
> Pro 19:27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction [that causeth] to err from the words of knowledge. KJV
> 
> ...



You know, this is why I think the bible version issue is worth pursuing though it can be horribly divisive. The fact is, those two bibles say completely different things. One is asking the son to stay away from corrupting instruction. The other is telling the son to keep listening to good instruction. Completely, and utterly different. Now both could be said to be 'correct' in that both are good biblical principles that can be supported from elsewhere in the bible. But surely when God inspired the original words he only had one meaning in mind? So one translation must be wrong and the other correct...

Thoughts?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 3, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> There's always latin.



That wouldn't be vulgar.


----------



## KMK (Mar 4, 2007)

bookslover said:


> To what would Christians have had to be disobedient in order to incur the "punishment" of proliferating translations of the Bible? Why is the fact that there are many translations of Scripture supposed to be "evil," or some kind of "punishment"? This statement makes no sense.



I may be in error, but my statement makes sense. You disagree and believe that the plurality of English language versions is a blessing, I assume.



bookslover said:


> If the AV had been published in 1511 or 1711, the language would have been different yet from the 1611. If the AV had been published in 1711 (in which case it would have been the K_V, for King Whoever), then some Christians today would be protesting that we "need to adhere to the K_V Bible against all others".



Not me. I protest that we should be using the English version that is the most well-written, most elegant, most majestic, most sublime English language version available because we are dealing with the very Word of God. And I don't think Modern english (whatever that is) can provide us with that. (Perhaps this assumption on my part is false.)



bookslover said:


> All living languages change - if they don't, they become dead languages, like Latin.



Perhaps this is the crux of the argument. I don't believe that Elizabethan English is dead. For example...

Psa 133 <A Song of degrees of David.> Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

That does not sound like a 'dead' language to me. Maybe a dictionary would be helpful for the word 'skirts', but every version is going to require digging deep in order to find the sublimation for different truths included in every passage of the Bible.



bookslover said:


> Modern English is a perfectly acceptable language for the Bible to be translated in, just as Elizabethan English was in the AV's time - and just as modern German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Zuelchian are today (OK, I made that last one up). Languages are what they are, and Christians do themselves no favors by trying to insist that the only legitimate version of English for the Bible is Elizabethan or Jacobean English.



I am not arguing that Modern English (whatever that is) is not acceptable. I just don't believe it is necessary to translate the TR into it.

Whatever problems the KJV has, it used to be the standard. (Some argue that it still is) If the standard needs to change then the English speaking church should unite and bring forth a new version. The Psalm does say that unity is a blessing!


----------



## KMK (Mar 4, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Yeah, well, good luck with that - especially since there's absolutely no reason why modern American children _should_ become adept at Elizabethan English.



Do you want to stand by this statement? No more Shakespeare for our youth? No more Chaucer?


----------



## Saiph (Mar 4, 2007)

satz said:


> You know, this is why I think the bible version issue is worth pursuing though it can be horribly divisive. The fact is, those two bibles say completely different things. One is asking the son to stay away from corrupting instruction. The other is telling the son to keep listening to good instruction. Completely, and utterly different. Now both could be said to be 'correct' in that both are good biblical principles that can be supported from elsewhere in the bible. But surely when God inspired the original words he only had one meaning in mind? So one translation must be wrong and the other correct...
> 
> Thoughts?



One of the first things I learned when studyng greek was that ALL translation is indeed *interpretation*.

There is no 1:1 correspondence to thought, and word. Therefore there definitely cannot be a 1:1 correspondence to a word in language A to a word in language B. What the author intended can be interpreted clearly though between two languages. The correspondence is "close enough" to find meaning. It takes linguistic skill and prayer to discern that meaning. Sometimes literal definitions can actually be used to avoid "meaning". Example: a kid is running through the house. The parent says, "Stop running!", the child replies, I was not running I was jogging. Consider that analogy next time when reading between KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, etc . . .


----------



## JM (Mar 4, 2007)

Reading the AV has improved my manner of speaking over the last few years…now I just need to work on my written English.  I’m sure reading Shakespeare would’ve done the same thing but I’m not all that interested in Shakespeare.

j


----------

