# KJV Revision - Calling all Received Text Onlyists!



## tdh86 (Jun 5, 2017)

So…I could do with some help… I’m a Received Text onlyist who sees a great need for a faithful but readable Bible version which is based on the RT. (That’s not the reason I need help although some of you would say otherwise !)

I know most people would say that the NKJV and the MEV do the job quite adequately but there are various problems with both (a quick investiGoogle will show that) and, when my kids learned to read, I was faced with the same old difficulty – do we get them to read an inferior translation with better readability or just stick to the KJV and work through the readability issues? Having done plenty of research into the options available, I still wasn’t happy with any of them and started asking why no-one has just done a genuine update of the KJV – something more readable but staying true to the TR and not full of ‘the best manuscripts omit…’ kind of footnotes. So that’s what I started doing.

Taking the text of the KJV as my starting point, I’ve been working to produce an update for the last couple of years. The aim is to be far more readable than both the KJV and the NKJV and my goal is for closer to an NIV level but without losing the accuracy, and also to retain the singular/plural pronouns and the switches in verb tense. The New Testament is now in the editing phase and I’m very happy with the results but I’d really love to find someone else who sees the value in a project like this and who (maybe) has a good enough grasp of the Greek to make sure that there is no major deviations. Failing that, having some Beta readers who are theologically sound and have a love for the Word would be a massive help too. If anyone thinks they might be interested in helping out in any way at all then I’d love to hear from you.

By grace,
Tim


Here’s a chapter preview for anyone who’s interested…


_LUKE CHAPTER 1_

SINCE many have undertaken to set out in order an account of the things that are most surely believed among us,
2 Just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and ministers of the word, handed them down to us;
3 It seemed good for me also, having fully investigated everything from the very beginning, to write to you in order, most noble Theophilus.
4 So that you could know the reliability of the things that you have been instructed in.
5 ¶ IN the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, from the sequence of Abijah; and his wife _was_ from the daughters of Aaron, and her name _was_ Elisabeth.
6 And they were both righteous in the sight of God, going about _their_ _lives_ blamelessly in all the commandments and regulations of the Lord.
7 And they did not have a child, because Elisabeth was barren, and they were both _now_ getting on in years.
8 And it came about, that while he was serving as a priest in the presence of God in the order of his sequence,
9 In keeping with the custom of the priesthood, the lot fell for him to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10 And the whole crowd of the people were praying outside at the time of incense.
11 And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense.
12 And, when Zacharias saw _him_, he was troubled and fear came over him.
13 But the angel said to him, Do not be afraid, Zacharias, because your prayer is heard; and your wife Elisabeth will produce a son for you, and you will call his name John.
14 And you will have joy and gladness; and many will rejoice at his birth.
15 Because he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and will not drink wine or strong drink; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, right from his mother’s womb.
16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.
17 And he will go ahead of him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and _to turn _the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
18 And Zacharias said to the angel, How will I know this? Because I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.
19 And, in reply, the angel said to him, I am Gabriel, the one who stands in the presence of God and was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.
20 But look, you will be silent and unable to speak, until the day when these things are done, because you do not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their time.
21 And the people waited for Zacharias, and wondered that he delayed for so long in the temple.
22 And when he came out, he was unable to speak to them. And they realised that he had seen a vision in the temple, because he gestured to them and remained speechless.
23 And it came about, that, as soon as the days of his public service were completed, he went away to his own house.
24 And, after those days, his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself for five months, saying,
25 This is how the Lord has dealt with me in the days when he looked upon _me_, to take away my disgrace among men.
26 And, in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27 To a virgin who was engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, from the household of David. And the virgin’s name _was_ Mary.
28 And the angel came in to _where_ she _was _and said, Hail, highly favoured _one_! The Lord _is_ with you. You_ are_ blessed among women.
29 And when she saw _him_, she was troubled at his statement, and _tried to _work out what kind of greeting this could be.
30 And the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary. For you have found favour with God.
31 And, look, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son and will call his name Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.
33 And he will reign over the household of Jacob forever; and there will be no end to his kingdom.
34 Then Mary said to the angel, How will this be, since I do not know a man?
35 And, in reply, the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. And so, the holy one who will be born from you will be called the Son of God.
36 And, look, your relative Elisabeth, she has also conceived a son in her old age. And this is the sixth month for her, the one who was called barren.
37 Because, with God, nothing will be impossible.
38 And Mary said, See the maidservant of the Lord! May it be to me in accordance with your word. And the angel went away from her.
39 And, in those days, Mary got up and went hurrying to the hill country, into a city of Judah.
40 And went into the house of Zacharias, and greeted Elisabeth.
41 And it came about, that, when Elisabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leapt in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
42 Then she spoke out with a loud voice, and said, You_ are_ blessed among women, and the fruit of your womb _is_ blessed.
43 And why _is_ this _granted _to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, look, as soon as the sound of your greeting came into my ears, the baby jumped for joy in my womb.
45 And blessed _is_ she who believed; because there will be fulfilment of the things that were told her from the Lord.
46 And Mary said, My soul magnifies the Lord.
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 Because he has looked upon the lowly state of his maidservant. For, look, from now on, all generations will call me blessed.
49 Because the mighty one has done great things to me; and his name _is_ holy.
50 And his mercy _is_ upon those who fear him from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm. He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52 He has pulled the rulers down from _their_ thrones, and exalted _the_ lowly.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things; and he has sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of _his_ mercy;
55 As he said to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his offspring for ever.
56 And Mary stayed with her for about three months and _then _returned to her own house.
57 Now Elisabeth’s full time came for her to be delivered; and she gave birth to a son.
58 And her neighbours and her relatives heard how the Lord had shown great mercy towards her; and they rejoiced with her.
59 And it came about, that, on the eighth day, they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
60 And, in response, his mother said, No, but he will be called John.
61 And they said to her, There is no-one in your family who is called by this name.
62 And they signalled to his father, _asking _what he wanted him to be called.
63 And he asked for a writing tablet, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they all marvelled.
64 And his mouth was immediately opened, and his tongue _was released_, and he spoke and praised God.
65 And fear came over all who lived around them. And all these reports were talked about throughout the hill country of Judæa.
66 And all who heard _them_ placed _them_ in their hearts, saying, What kind of child will this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed _be_ the Lord God of Israel; because he has visited and redeemed his people.
69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets, _who have been prophesying _since the world began.
71 So that we would be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us;
72 To enact the mercy _promised_ to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath that he swore to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant to us that, being rescued out of the hand of our enemies, we could serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness in his sight, all the days of our life.
76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High. For you will go ahead of the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation to his people by the absolving of their sins,
78 Through the compassionate mercy of our God; in which the Sunrise from on high has visited us,
79 To give light to those who sit in darkness and _in_ the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
80 And the child grew up, and grew strong in spirit, and was in the wildernesses until the day of his being announced to Israel.


----------



## Jake (Jun 5, 2017)

It might be valuable to investigate some other light revisions of the KJV to make sure you don't duplicate work, such as: 21st Century King James Version, American King James Version, Modern King James Version, KJII and KJIII by Jay Green, and Updated King James Version, among numerous others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 5, 2017)

Thanks Jake. That's a very good point. I've looked at all of these and there are a few decent versions but a lot only make very minor changes and so aren't really worth switching for. Or in the case of Jay Green's translations, he went too far and made them fairly unusable (for me at least). It's a big task so I'd love to think someone else has already done it but I'm not sure they have.
Thanks for the reply!


----------



## Jake (Jun 5, 2017)

There seems to be a more complete list here to look at as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_English_Bible_translations#King_James_Version_and_derivatives


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 5, 2017)

Thanks for that Jake! The closest one I've seen is the KJ2000 but, again, much of the old sentence structure is retained and there is also no distinction between singular and plural pronouns.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 5, 2017)

See also:
http://faraboveall.com/050_BibleTranslation/01_BibleTranslationIndex.html
http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/alt.htm

Translation tables spreadsheet at:
http://berean.bible/downloads.htm


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 5, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> See also:
> http://faraboveall.com/050_BibleTranslation/01_BibleTranslationIndex.html
> http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/alt.htm
> 
> ...



Thankyou!


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Thanks Jake. That's a very good point. I've looked at all of these and there are a few decent versions but a lot only make very minor changes and so aren't really worth switching for. Or in the case of Jay Green's translations, he went too far and made them fairly unusable (for me at least). It's a big task so I'd love to think someone else has already done it but I'm not sure they have.
> Thanks for the reply!


The Modern Version Bible claims to be based upon the TR used by the KJV, and just updated modern meanings to certain terms...


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 5, 2017)

Hi David
I'm not aware of that one. You don't mean the Modern English Version do you? My goal is an update of wording and sentence structure though. The substitution of archaic words has been done a few times already. I think the KJV Easy Reader is one of the best examples of that.

Thanks
Tim


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 5, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Hi David
> I'm not aware of that one. You don't mean the Modern English Version do you? My goal is an update of wording and sentence structure though. The substitution of archaic words has been done a few times already. I think the KJV Easy Reader is one of the best examples of that.
> 
> Thanks
> Tim


Yes, that would be the one....


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 5, 2017)

Just looking at the Luke chapter you have here, I would immediately get rid of most, if not all, of the "and's" at the beginning of so many of the verses. Greek "de" and "kai" do not correspond precisely to the English "and" in all situations. English "and" is a conjunction meant to tie together two thoughts in a close way. Greek "de" and "kai" often mean no more than "I am continuing the narrative," quite adequately translated most of the time by putting things in paragraph form. Sometimes, it can mean "and," but more often it simply means continuation. It is not good English to start so many sentences in a row with "and." Modern grammatical rules do not preclude starting some sentences with "and." However, if every sentence, or too many sentences, start with "and," then the word loses its conjunctive English force. We don't talk this way, so why should our translation look that way?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## hammondjones (Jun 5, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> However, if every sentence, or too many sentences, start with "and," then the word loses its conjunctive English force. We don't talk this way, so why should our translation look that way?



It would be in good company with the parataxis of Robert Alter's translation of the Pentateuch.


----------



## MW (Jun 5, 2017)

An artificial standard of "readability" is not going to extend a child's vocabulary, comprehension, and the ability to adapt to different contexts. A good reader brings the skill-set to the text; he does not alter the text to fit the skill-set.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward (Jun 5, 2017)

By artificially line breaking it into verses you are impairing readability.


----------



## MW (Jun 5, 2017)

Edward said:


> By artificially line breaking it into verses you are impairing readability.



Then poetry would pose a real problem.

Exposure to more forms, not a restriction to less forms, will improve the readability of the reader.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 6, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Just looking at the Luke chapter you have here, I would immediately get rid of most, if not all, of the "and's" at the beginning of so many of the verses. Greek "de" and "kai" do not correspond precisely to the English "and" in all situations. English "and" is a conjunction meant to tie together two thoughts in a close way. Greek "de" and "kai" often mean no more than "I am continuing the narrative," quite adequately translated most of the time by putting things in paragraph form. Sometimes, it can mean "and," but more often it simply means continuation. It is not good English to start so many sentences in a row with "and." Modern grammatical rules do not preclude starting some sentences with "and." However, if every sentence, or too many sentences, start with "and," then the word loses its conjunctive English force. We don't talk this way, so why should our translation look that way?



Thanks for the response. I know where you're coming from and appreciate what you're saying. My only concern with that approach is that the word is in the Greek and, if the aim is to remain as word-for-word as possible, then I don't feel comfortable with taking them out. The same applies to all the instances of 'and he answered and said'. We wouldn't say it like that but I don't think it's so off-putting.

T


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 6, 2017)

MW said:


> An artificial standard of "readability" is not going to extend a child's vocabulary, comprehension, and the ability to adapt to different contexts. A good reader brings the skill-set to the text; he does not alter the text to fit the skill-set.



Thanks for the reply, Matthew. I'll be honest, when it comes to the Word of God 'extending a child's vocabulary, comprehension, and the ability to adapt to different contexts' is the furthest thing from my mind. The Word of God should not be viewed as an English literature textbook but as a war manual. The Bible is literally a matter of life and death. The soldier on the battlefield doesn't need his vocabulary extending, he just needs access to the instructions that are going to keep him alive. The Lord did not use flowery language to challenge His hearers; he used very straightforward language but it was the truths which that language was expressing that people couldn't grasp as they are 'spiritually discerned'. I believe that our Bibles should reflect that and be, in the words of the KJV translators, 'in the language of Canaan' and understandable 'to the most vulgar'. The Word of God should be accessible to the modern equivalent of Tyndale's ploughboy.

T


----------



## MW (Jun 6, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> The Word of God should not be viewed as an English literature textbook but as a war manual.



War is only one theme utilised by holy Scripture. To reduce it to this one theme would destroy the richness and variety of special revelation in equipping souls for faith and obedience. Nor is holy Scripture a manual. Like creation there is beauty and excellence which are fitted to allure as well as truth and righteousness to instruct. The Lord commands our attention and draws the heart with delight in Him.

Although it is not a literature textbook, the Bible is literature, and should be translated accordingly. The translation should bear all the internal marks whereby holy Scripture demonstrates itself to be the word of God, as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 1, sect. 5: "the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God."

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 6, 2017)

Edward said:


> By artificially line breaking it into verses you are impairing readability.



Paragraph format is nice for devotional reading, but for preaching I need verse by verse format. Otherwise I struggle to find particular verses when I look back down at my Bible.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 6, 2017)

Tim, just because a word is in the source language does not mean that it has to be in the target language. The very best translation philosophy I have ever seen is in the forward to the Christian Standard Bible. There is meaning on every level: word level, phrase level, clause level, sentence level, paragraph level, chapter level, book level, testament level, and canon level. This means you cannot ignore any level when determining what you believe the meaning to be. Words occur in ever-expanding and important contexts, and a pure word for word does not wind up doing justice to either language. Individual words matter, of course. We don't want to remove words like "justification," "propitiation," etc. I am no advocate for "thought for thought" pure dynamic equivalence, thereby ignoring the meaning of individual words. But you have to take more levels of meaning into account than merely the word level, otherwise we might confuse the word "lie" (is one telling a lie, or is one going to lie down?). Context matters just as much as individual words, and the Greek "de" and "kai" CANNOT be adequately translated by "and" every time. I would advise you to rethink your policy on this, as there are many times translating Greek into English where you do not have a full English equivalent word for word, and either a Greek word needs to be dropped, or English words added. This is part of the give and take of translation. 

Nor can many, many other words be translated by a one to one equivalent every time. One word can mean several different things depending on context. The Greek word "dikaioo" is often a transfer term, especially in Paul, indicating an imputation of guilt or righteousness (even there, there is a difference!). But imputation is not present in the sentence "wisdom is justified by her children." Surely wisdom does not receive an imputation of Christ's righteousness! It rather means "shown to be correct," or simply "vindicated." 

The KJV has plenty of instances where it supplies words that are not technically in the original, but are implied. The same goes in reverse. What I am saying is that translating Greek "de" and "kai" every time by the word "and" is actually a mistranslation, a misuse of the English "and," and it's bad English.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Tim, just because a word is in the source language does not mean that it has to be in the target language. The very best translation philosophy I have ever seen is in the forward to the Christian Standard Bible. There is meaning on every level: word level, phrase level, clause level, sentence level, paragraph level, chapter level, book level, testament level, and canon level. This means you cannot ignore any level when determining what you believe the meaning to be. Words occur in ever-expanding and important contexts, and a pure word for word does not wind up doing justice to either language. Individual words matter, of course. We don't want to remove words like "justification," "propitiation," etc. I am no advocate for "thought for thought" pure dynamic equivalence, thereby ignoring the meaning of individual words. But you have to take more levels of meaning into account than merely the word level, otherwise we might confuse the word "lie" (is one telling a lie, or is one going to lie down?). Context matters just as much as individual words, and the Greek "de" and "kai" CANNOT be adequately translated by "and" every time. I would advise you to rethink your policy on this, as there are many times translating Greek into English where you do not have a full English equivalent word for word, and either a Greek word needs to be dropped, or English words added. This is part of the give and take of translation.
> 
> Nor can many, many other words be translated by a one to one equivalent every time. One word can mean several different things depending on context. The Greek word "dikaioo" is often a transfer term, especially in Paul, indicating an imputation of guilt or righteousness (even there, there is a difference!). But imputation is not present in the sentence "wisdom is justified by her children." Surely wisdom does not receive an imputation of Christ's righteousness! It rather means "shown to be correct," or simply "vindicated."
> 
> The KJV has plenty of instances where it supplies words that are not technically in the original, but are implied. The same goes in reverse. What I am saying is that translating Greek "de" and "kai" every time by the word "and" is actually a mistranslation, a misuse of the English "and," and it's bad English.


There are also the issues with translating Idioms into another language, as to how literal to try to keep it and make it understandable, and also when the Nasv tries to keep the meaning of the Greek verb brought over in to the English, that is when it can get strange reading at times...
We also need to accept that the same words in the Greek text at times can have different English renderings, and that there is really no strictly literal translation. not unless one does it as an Interlinear...


----------



## bookslover (Jun 6, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Thanks for the response. I know where you're coming from and appreciate what you're saying. My only concern with that approach is that the word is in the Greek and, if the aim is to remain as word-for-word as possible, then I don't feel comfortable with taking them out. The same applies to all the instances of 'and he answered and said'. We wouldn't say it like that but I don't think it's so off-putting.
> 
> T



In that case, you're going to end up with a very stiff, wooden translation that is not easy to read. May as well use the New American Standard.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 6, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Thanks for the reply, Matthew. I'll be honest, when it comes to the Word of God 'extending a child's vocabulary, comprehension, and the ability to adapt to different contexts' is the furthest thing from my mind. The Word of God should not be viewed as an English literature textbook but as a war manual. The Bible is literally a matter of life and death. The soldier on the battlefield doesn't need his vocabulary extending, he just needs access to the instructions that are going to keep him alive. The Lord did not use flowery language to challenge His hearers; he used very straightforward language but it was the truths which that language was expressing that people couldn't grasp as they are 'spiritually discerned'. I believe that our Bibles should reflect that and be, in the words of the KJV translators, 'in the language of Canaan' and understandable 'to the most vulgar'. The Word of God should be accessible to the modern equivalent of Tyndale's ploughboy.
> 
> T



Well, the KJV's language was understandable "to the most vulgar" _of their own time_. Today's "most vulgar" do not speak or read 16th- or 17th-century English. A modern translation, even an updating of the KJV, should reflect _our_ time, not _theirs._ Also, in the New Testament, the KJV is about 80% William Tyndale's translation, which was already almost 100 years old _then_. So, even in 1611, the KJV's English in the New Testament was already somewhat archaic and out-of-date.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2017)

bookslover said:


> In that case, you're going to end up with a very stiff, wooden translation that is not easy to read. May as well use the New American Standard.


The Nas is excellent to use for study, but for reading out loud, or for casual reading, not so much...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 6, 2017)

Archaisms are often used for literary effect and do not necessarily imply something is out of date, so I challenge just a wee bit the claim that the KJV is archaic (out of date). We regularly find Biblical archaisms in everyday speech and in the media or newspaper. I welcome these archaisms as they challenge me to dig deeper and the communication of them has lasting effects upon my knowledge of what they intended to communicate and instruct.


----------



## KMK (Jun 6, 2017)

How about a website where you could answer questions about your age, background, and education level, and it spits out a Bible translated just for you. If readability is the goal, then that would be the way to go.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 6, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Archaisms are often used for literary effect and do not necessarily imply something is out of date, so I challenge just a wee bit the claim that the KJV is archaic (out of date). We regularly find Biblical archaisms in everyday speech and in the media or newspaper. I welcome these archaisms as they challenge me to dig deeper and the communication of them has lasting effects upon my knowledge of what they intended to communicate and instruct.


The translation is not archaic on the whole, but there are definite sections where the intended meaning is hard to figure out for many who were not raised up on it...


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 6, 2017)

bookslover said:


> In that case, you're going to end up with a very stiff, wooden translation that is not easy to read. May as well use the New American Standard.



Did you read the chapter I posted?


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 6, 2017)

bookslover said:


> Well, the KJV's language was understandable "to the most vulgar" _of their own time_. Today's "most vulgar" do not speak or read 16th- or 17th-century English. A modern translation, even an updating of the KJV, should reflect _our_ time, not _theirs._ Also, in the New Testament, the KJV is about 80% William Tyndale's translation, which was already almost 100 years old _then_. So, even in 1611, the KJV's English in the New Testament was already somewhat archaic and out-of-date.



My point precisely.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 6, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Archaisms are often used for literary effect and do not necessarily imply something is out of date, so I challenge just a wee bit the claim that the KJV is archaic (out of date). We regularly find Biblical archaisms in everyday speech and in the media or newspaper. I welcome these archaisms as they challenge me to dig deeper and the communication of them has lasting effects upon my knowledge of what they intended to communicate and instruct.



Depends what you mean. If you mean 'the powers that be' for example, then I agree. But if you think we should leave Master in instead of Teacher then I submit that that is very unhelpful. Just to use that as an example, everyone seems to read Master and understand it as Lord instead of the earlier meaning of the word as in the headmaster or my science master. The word is not wrong, it's just shifted meaning.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 6, 2017)

KMK said:


> How about a website where you could answer questions about your age, background, and education level, and it spits out a Bible translated just for you. If readability is the goal, then that would be the way to go.



Or just do what Tyndale did, go for the lowest common denominator. What would the plough-boy understand? Hey, if it's good enough for Tyndale...


----------



## KMK (Jun 6, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Or just do what Tyndale did, go for the lowest common denominator. What would the plough-boy understand? Hey, if it's good enough for Tyndale...



If readability is the most important thing, then with today's technology I am sure we can do better than Tyndale.


----------



## Edward (Jun 6, 2017)

MW said:


> Then poetry would pose a real problem.
> 
> Exposure to more forms, not a restriction to less forms, will improve the readability of the reader.



You are aware, aren't you, that the current verse numbers weren't in the original texts and that putting line breaks in at each verse number doesn't necessarily reflect the original structure? 

And I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with "will improve the readability of the reader" - perhaps that is something that needs a translation from Australian English to American English, because the preposition used there doesn't seem to work here. 

And are you suggesting by saying "Exposure to more forms, not a restriction to less forms" that the non-poetical portions of scripture should be converted to rhyme or other novel structure to expand the mind of the reader, at the expense of communication?


----------



## MW (Jun 6, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> But if you think we should leave Master in instead of Teacher then I submit that that is very unhelpful.



You seem to be able to recognise that master means teacher within a certain context. Why do you think that this would be too difficult for others to grasp? Are you crediting the reader with intellectual capacity?


----------



## MW (Jun 6, 2017)

Edward said:


> You are aware, aren't you, that the current verse numbers weren't in the original texts and that putting line breaks in at each verse number doesn't necessarily reflect the original structure?



English contains punctuation to demonstrate continuity and discontinuity. Line breaks are useful for reading in specific contexts. I have heard of instances where readers of the Greek have expressed a desire for the text to be broken up for ease of reference. Although the verses are not original they are a convention for ease of access.

"Improve the reader's ability to read" might be a better way of phrasing it.

Modern education is "constructivist." It aims to teach students to be creative and revolutionary. Modern Bible translation tends in the same direction. Bible translation has traditionally been conducted on a "receptionist" basis. Onus was laid on the reader to understand the text and Bible reading was seen as a discipline to be cultivated as a part of "hearing" and "receiving" the word of the Lord. Creativity was not the aim.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## MW (Jun 6, 2017)

bookslover said:


> Well, the KJV's language was understandable "to the most vulgar" _of their own time_. Today's "most vulgar" do not speak or read 16th- or 17th-century English. A modern translation, even an updating of the KJV, should reflect _our_ time, not _theirs._ Also, in the New Testament, the KJV is about 80% William Tyndale's translation, which was already almost 100 years old _then_. So, even in 1611, the KJV's English in the New Testament was already somewhat archaic and out-of-date.



From where is the superlative "most" being derived?

While you continue to use the word "vulgar" and expect people to understand what you mean within context you are demonstrating that people have enough intelligence to know when to take a word or phrase with some elasticity.

The fact that Tyndale and the AV translators used a form of language which was already out of step with the way contemporary readers spoke the English language demonstrates that "readability" and being "vulgar" did not relate to the spoken word, but were determined by the quality of the written word. Even Tyndale's ploughboy would need to plough in the scriptures and labour with his mind in order to reap a reward. There was not the type of "immediacy" of understanding which modern translations aim to produce.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Edward (Jun 7, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Paragraph format is nice for devotional reading, but for preaching I need verse by verse format. Otherwise I struggle to find particular verses when I look back down at my Bible.



Fair enough, but the original post dealt with readability, not preachability, so I'll stand on my comment.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 7, 2017)

MW said:


> You seem to be able to recognise that master means teacher within a certain context. Why do you think that this would be too difficult for others to grasp? Are you crediting the reader with intellectual capacity?



Because I listen to what other people say. And hear everyone's presumption that master means lord. And have asked them directly if they know what it means. And invariably they refer to lordship. I'm saying that leaving in a word that is often misleading to the modern reader is irresponsible.


----------



## MW (Jun 7, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Because I listen to what other people say. And hear everyone's presumption that master means lord. And have asked them directly if they know what it means. And invariably they refer to lordship. I'm saying that leaving in a word that is often misleading to the modern reader is irresponsible.



The text is not misleading if a person is unaware of the meaning of words. Once readers are shown that "master" also means "teacher" in certain contexts they should be glad to be better informed about their mother tongue. Instruction should aim to impart more information, not less.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 8, 2017)

Or...we could just change the word to the modern equivalent and stop playing educational games with the word of God...


----------



## Logan (Jun 8, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Or...we could just change the word to the modern equivalent and stop playing educational games with the word of God...



I agree. Where do we read that the KJV translators aimed to increase the vocabulary of their readers? Or that the Reformers believed the hallmark of a good translation was that it stretched the reader in order to be able to understand it? Or that it needed archaisms to challenge people to increase in knowledge?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 8, 2017)

We read it from our Confession's summary of Scripture concerning the topic:

WCF 1.5
"*5*. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13-14, 1 Cor. 2:10-12, Isa. 59:21)"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 8, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Individual words matter, of course. We don't want to remove words like "justification," "propitiation," etc.


I also love my HCSB. But I have been sadened to discover that the CSB does not use the word propitiation. I think this has unfortunate copnsequences.

As RC Sproul explains "Ultimately, Jesus died to save us from the wrath of God... It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of a holy God Who’s wrathful" http://www.ligonier.org/blog/two-important-words-good-friday-expiation-and-propitiation/

In a society where there is little fear of God, we need to retain the word propitiation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Jun 8, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Or...we could just change the word to the modern equivalent and stop playing educational games with the word of God...



The idea that there are "word-for-word" equivalents is somewhat simplistic. A single word might not serve the original intention where a variety of contexts is in view. In this case it can be beneficial to have other expressions to expand on the meaning and show that the word has broader connotations than "one who teaches." One who has "mastery" as a teacher should be called a "master." If there is no modern equivalent in the reader's day to day vocabulary (although "school-master" immediately comes to mind) then obviously readers are going to have to learn the meaning of new words. That is to be expected where the field of knowledge is broader than the person's day to day experience. Tyndale introduced words into the English language by means of his translation. He did not conceive a problem with his ploughboy learning the meaning of words so as to grow in knowledge of the language he was using.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW (Jun 8, 2017)

W. Harold Mare, 'Teacher and Rabbi in the New Testament Period' in Grace Theological Journal 11.3 (1970) 11-21, notes the following technical usage of didaskalos in the New Testament:

"That the terms rabbi and didaskalos are understood in the Gospels as equivalents is seen John 1:38 and John 20:16. The complex of rabbi-didaskalos and mathetes (disciple, learner), that is, *the master-teacher and his group of followers*, is presented regarding Jesus and His disciples in John 1:37-38; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8, and also of John the Baptist and his group (John 3:26)."

After examining the extra-biblical evidence he concludes as follows:

"In summary, it is to be observed that *rabbi together with didaskalos began to be used for the idea of teacher-master at about the time of Christ*, as is evidenced by the New Testament Gospels and some early archaeological evidence from inscriptions, and the corroborative evidence from Josephus and Philo in the use of equivalent terms. Then as the transition between the Jewish economy and Christian Church continued, the term rabbi no longer had a place in the latter as is evidenced by the lack of the use of the term rabbi in the New Testament outside of the Gospels. Even didaskalos outside the Gospels is sparingly used in the Acts and the Epistles, this latter term seeming to be reserved basically for Jesus (compare also Ignatius; Mag. IX, Jesus Christ, our only didaskalos). This is corroborated in the Apostolic Fathers where rabbi doesn't occur at all and where didaskalos is used but relatively infrequently. But on the other hand, as Judaism continued and developed in its own way, the title “Rabbi” became increasingly important in Jewish practice and tradition as is evidenced by Talmudic tradition."


----------



## MW (Jun 8, 2017)

Tyndale's epistle To the Reader in the preface to the New Testament, 1526, is available here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/tyndale2.html

Observe that he hoped in time to come to add a "table to expound the words which are not commonly used and show how *the Scripture useth many words which are otherwise understood of the common people*, and to help with a declaration where one tongue taketh not another."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 9, 2017)

Logan said:


> I agree. Where do we read that the KJV translators aimed to increase the vocabulary of their readers? Or that the Reformers believed the hallmark of a good translation was that it stretched the reader in order to be able to understand it? Or that it needed archaisms to challenge people to increase in knowledge?



Precisely! Thanks Logan!


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> We read it from our Confession's summary of Scripture concerning the topic:
> 
> WCF 1.5
> "*5*. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13-14, 1 Cor. 2:10-12, Isa. 59:21)"



As Logan asked, 'Where do we read that the KJV translators aimed to increase the vocabulary of their readers? Or that the Reformers believed the hallmark of a good translation was that it stretched the reader in order to be able to understand it? Or that it needed archaisms to challenge people to increase in knowledge?' That quote doesn't address any of those questions. It speaks of majesty of style but are we honestly saying that KJV language is the only way English can sound majestic??


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 9, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I also love my HCSB. But I have been sadened to discover that the CSB does not use the word propitiation. I think this has unfortunate copnsequences.
> 
> As RC Sproul explains "Ultimately, Jesus died to save us from the wrath of God... It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of a holy God Who’s wrathful" http://www.ligonier.org/blog/two-important-words-good-friday-expiation-and-propitiation/
> 
> In a society where there is little fear of God, we need to retain the word propitiation.



I'm going to get shot down here I know but I don't agree. The big doctrines of the Word of God are vitally important and we need to be careful that we don't dumb them down but, for me, the word propitiation is essentially meaningless to most people. I've asked mature believers to tell me what propitiation means and virtually everyone struggles. They know the word but they don't really have a clear definition in their minds. I know there are some words which just don't have another word which means exactly the same thing and so there is no option of using a synonym but I would argue that, in this case, the word 'appeasement' brings clarity and means exactly the same thing. And it's a word that we all use and understand. So why would we not use it? The KJV already substitutes 'make reconciliation' for the same Greek word in Hebrews 2 so using synonyms doesn't have to be a sin... ;-)


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 9, 2017)

MW said:


> The idea that there are "word-for-word" equivalents is somewhat simplistic. A single word might not serve the original intention where a variety of contexts is in view. In this case it can be beneficial to have other expressions to expand on the meaning and show that the word has broader connotations than "one who teaches." One who has "mastery" as a teacher should be called a "master." If there is no modern equivalent in the reader's day to day vocabulary (although "school-master" immediately comes to mind) then obviously readers are going to have to learn the meaning of new words. That is to be expected where the field of knowledge is broader than the person's day to day experience. Tyndale introduced words into the English language by means of his translation. He did not conceive a problem with his ploughboy learning the meaning of words so as to grow in knowledge of the language he was using.



It would be simplistic if I thought that the same word should always be used in every instance, regardless of context and any other considerations. Or that using a synonym always works. But I don't. Sometimes it doesn't work. But it often does.
For example, there are numerous passages in the NT where the KJV uses the word 'unbelieving' but some modern translations use the word 'disobedient' (or something along those lines) instead. That is because the Greek word has the element of rebelliousness in it. But that issue can, in fact, be easily resolved by substituting one word. If we use the word disbelieving instead of unbelieving then we can incorporate both ideas into one word. We then have:

noun: *disbelief*

inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
as opposed to...

noun: *unbelief*

lack of religious belief; an absence of faith.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 9, 2017)

MW said:


> W. Harold Mare, 'Teacher and Rabbi in the New Testament Period' in Grace Theological Journal 11.3 (1970) 11-21, notes the following technical usage of didaskalos in the New Testament:
> 
> "That the terms rabbi and didaskalos are understood in the Gospels as equivalents is seen John 1:38 and John 20:16. The complex of rabbi-didaskalos and mathetes (disciple, learner), that is, *the master-teacher and his group of followers*, is presented regarding Jesus and His disciples in John 1:37-38; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8, and also of John the Baptist and his group (John 3:26)."
> 
> ...



So then, since master-teacher isn't a word and we have to pick a word, then why would we consciously use 'master' instead of 'teacher' when there is far more of the teacher aspect in the Greek word than of the master aspect? That seems deliberately perverse.


----------



## Logan (Jun 9, 2017)

I just recently spoke with a co-worker of mine who is Roman Catholic. Note that he is quite an intelligent and diligent individual. He started reading the Bible for the first time with a study group and said that, not knowing any better, he picked up the KJV. After a couple months of struggling he finally admitted to his friend (and study leader) that he felt like he was slogging his way through each daily reading and would come away having read through it multiple times and still not able to understand what he was reading. Specifically he noted he just couldn't get past the language: there were so many "ands" stringing things together, words that he just didn't understand or were used differently, and "th" endings that would take up his attention so that the meaning of the whole was lost.

His words were "it reminded me actually, of when we have services in Latin twice a year and I come away feeling like I didn't learn anything at all from it." And he was frustrated about it, because he genuinely wanted to understand! 

Now obviously the language can be surmounted, but I sometimes think people who advocate the KJV are familiar with it to the point that they don't realize that it is not an insignificant hurdle to what is probably the majority of people. I love the language and I am making sure my children are familiar with it, but the implication of that attitude is that the common man spends what practically ends up being years understanding the language before he can really even begin to understand scripture masked by it. I see this as a problem.

This is a good litmus test for me: I understand there is a history to translations and a new translation doesn't come from a vacuum, but if we were to translate the word of God into English for the first time, would the final result look like the KJV? Or even were the KJV translators to have lived in our own day instead of 400 years ago, would the resulting translation look like the KJV? Then maybe it's time for a translation in the language of the common people. Let's not erect an artificial barrier of our own design to the Word of God.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 9, 2017)

Logan said:


> I just recently spoke with a co-worker of mine who is Roman Catholic. Note that he is quite an intelligent and diligent individual. He started reading the Bible for the first time with a study group and said that, not knowing any better, he picked up the KJV. After a couple months of struggling he finally admitted to his friend (and study leader) that he felt like he was slogging his way through each daily reading and would come away having read through it multiple times and still not able to understand what he was reading. Specifically he noted he just couldn't get past the language: there were so many "ands" stringing things together, words that he just didn't understand or were used differently, and "th" endings that would take up his attention so that the meaning of the whole was lost.
> 
> His words were "it reminded me actually, of when we have services in Latin twice a year and I come away feeling like I didn't learn anything at all from it." And he was frustrated about it, because he genuinely wanted to understand!
> 
> ...


The truth is that the translator themselves of the 1611 KJV saw it built upon the foundation of prior versions, and they did not regard their work as either inspired nor infallible, and that future versions would later on build upon their work to create better versions of the bible..
The entire purpose was to get the truths of the scriptures into language that the common laity could use and study, so there was even from the start no attempt to have the KJVO position advocated.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 9, 2017)

Tim,

The requirements for Scripture that is to be used in the pulpit are not the same as those elsewhere. We come to worship to hear the word of God. A high view of worship and reverent hearing of God's timeless and eternal character in His special revelation saturates the previously given quote from the WCF. The majesty of the style of the translation and its heavenliness speaks to its spiritual, linguistic, educational, and cultural transcendence. When the ordained servant declares from the pulpit, "_this is the word of God, he who has ears to hear, let him hear_" do we in the pulpit sit in judgment of that declaration?

We need not dilute the special revelation of God presuming that the everyman is incapable of discovering its truths with the aid of the Holy Spirit. We need not concern ourselves with making things "easy" or presume that the church has somehow got it all wrong and great changes are needed. Rather, we are reminded in the Confession that it is _the Church_ that has received the translation, and held it to high and reverent esteem. The Scripture is not a mere conversational discourse as we would have in the streets. When we hear the word of God we should be provoked to reverence that stops us in our daily tracks and quiets the conversational noises of our minds. Study of Scripture is a lifelong endeavor, its riches likely never to be fully plumbed. The attitude that reading of Scripture is a "one and done" activity bewilders me. All the stories of persons having to read and re-read in order to understand given as evidence of "issues" speaks more to lack of discipline and modern fast-food mentalities, not manifest needs for translation updating.

You assert in your OP that you have done a lot of research into the matter. Where is it? What does it conclude that has been overlooked by those that have come before us? What are the readability research results you have found? How do they compare to say, this: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/most-literal.92577/#post-1129861 ? Where on the literal scale shown therein will your translation fall? Above the ESV? What about readability? Above the NLT, which is but a poor man's commentary? What quantitative methods did you use and how do they compare to, say, this: https://csbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Quantitative-Translation-Evaluation-by-GBI.pdf ? 

Given these small samplings of the wealth of research that exists, how is your endeavor to be distinguished? Finally, what academic linguistic and textual skills do you bring to the effort? Are you_ translating a translation_ with help from lexicons? Are you beginning with the best Hebrew and Greek versions (which are exactly?) and going from there?

I am going to bow out now. Your OP solicited inputs. They have been given. It may be just me, but it seems the inputs you seek must be aligned with your own views else they are to be subjected to argumentation and dismissed. I think you are a wee bit entrenched in the methods you are using and no amount of input is going to move you off that position.


----------



## Logan (Jun 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> All the stories of persons having to read and re-read in order to understand given as evidence of "issues" speaks more to lack of discipline and modern fast-food mentalities, not manifest needs for translation updating.



In mine I did specifically preface it with the individual being diligent and intelligent. Need I have stated that he began reading the NIV and immediately found it more fruitful and helpful to his understanding? Does this not indicate that the language was the barrier, not the content?

It is completely understandable to need to study, read, and re-read Scripture to understand it. What astonishes me is that in these discussions, some seem to equate that to needing to study, read, and re-read 16th century English. Those two are not the same nor do they need to be! This attitude is so unlike the Reformers and Puritans that it should hardly need describing. If the Scottish Puritans were prepared to send a commission to request update of the AV because there were some words and idioms difficult for their people to understand (and that only a few decades after its translation), then why is it so unthinkable that the need would be there centuries after?

You can criticize modern society or attention span all you want, I'll be right there with you. Still, that does not mean that there is no language barrier or problem here. God intends for us to wrestle with the content, I do not believe he intends for us to wrestle with language, which is why we have translations in the first place.

I have an issue with reading WCF 1.5 that way. Scripture has an intrinsic majesty regardless of translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 9, 2017)

Logan said:


> Scripture has an intrinsic majesty regardless of translation.


Really? Regardless of translation?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
*Src*: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 9, 2017)

Logan said:


> In mine I did specifically preface it with the individual being diligent and intelligent. Need I have stated that he began reading the NIV and immediately found it more fruitful and helpful to his understanding? Does this not indicate that the language was the barrier, not the content?
> 
> It is completely understandable to need to study, read, and re-read Scripture to understand it. What astonishes me is that in these discussions, some seem to equate that to needing to study, read, and re-read 16th century English. Those two are not the same nor do they need to be! This attitude is so unlike the Reformers and Puritans that it should hardly need describing. If the Scottish Puritans were prepared to send a commission to request update of the AV because there were some words and idioms difficult for their people to understand (and that only a few decades after its translation), then why is it so unthinkable that the need would be there centuries after?
> 
> ...


The word of God is not tied into a particular translation, for in a real sense, the word of the Lord are the original language texts today, and so any reliable English translation should be seen as being the scriptures to us for today...

if the KJV speaks best to you, by all means use it, but to me the Nas and Esv speak more clearly...


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Really? Regardless of translation?
> 
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
> *Src*: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/


Worst "translation" ever produced...


----------



## Logan (Jun 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Really? Regardless of translation?



Patrick, I often benefit from your posts but it seems quite uncharitable to pretend I include the NWT as a translation of Scripture. But yes, the majesty is intrinsic to Scripture and the translation will have a majesty in so far as it represents Scripture. The point being that it is not the language used in translation, but Scripture's intrinsic nature (regardless of translation) that is the majesty the WCF references.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW (Jun 9, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> So then, since master-teacher isn't a word and we have to pick a word, then why would we consciously use 'master' instead of 'teacher' when there is far more of the teacher aspect in the Greek word than of the master aspect? That seems deliberately perverse.



In a previous post you said you were open to one word being translated different ways. When the word contains the nuance of the rabbi it is translated as master. When it relates simply to one who gives instruction it is translated teacher.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 9, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Tim,
> 
> The requirements for Scripture that is to be used in the pulpit are not the same as those elsewhere. We come to worship to hear the word of God. A high view of worship and reverent hearing of God's timeless and eternal character in His special revelation saturates the previously given quote from the WCF. The majesty of the style of the translation and its heavenliness speaks to its spiritual, linguistic, educational, and cultural transcendence. When the ordained servant declares from the pulpit, "_this is the word of God, he who has ears to hear, let him hear_" do we in the pulpit sit in judgment of that declaration?
> 
> ...



OK...just quickly... There are two very different issues here. One, which I agree with you on, is the issue of the truths of The Word being spiritually discerned. It's absolutely the case that someone who is spiritually blind will read without understanding until the Holy Spirit does His work. But does that mean they will not understand the language used? Of course it doesn't mean that. Otherwise the Catholics were right. Why did Tyndale need to translate the Bible at all? Of the language is only understood spiritually too then it might as well be in Latin! Why bother changing it?
I am certainly not advocating a Bible with improved readability in order for people to get a quicker fix of the Bible and move on. The point is that our efforts in studying should be all about understanding the truths of scripture rather than having to decipher the words in your own language first. We should spend more time in the word not less.

I'd just like to say that I really appreciate all the responses and the opinions given. However I did try to be very clear in my initial post that I am at the editing stage of the NT. In other words, it's pretty much finished so I was looking for people who were interested enough in the project to consider proofreading it for me. I have a considered method which I'm following and you'll forgive me for being 'entrenched' in my approach at this stage and not wanting to just scrap the entire NT and start again on a whim. While I appreciate the broad brush comments re translation methods etc that wasn't what my initial post was asking for so you're correct, I'm not looking to change my approach. But again, thanks for your thoughts. 

T


----------



## MW (Jun 9, 2017)

Logan said:


> His words were "it reminded me actually, of when we have services in Latin twice a year and I come away feeling like I didn't learn anything at all from it." And he was frustrated about it, because he genuinely wanted to understand!



The Bible is not the ordained ministry. This gentleman needs to sit under a faithful ministry which will teach him from the Bible so that he learns from the Bible in the way it was intended to be used.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 9, 2017)

MW said:


> In a previous post you said you were open to one word being translated different ways. When the word contains the nuance of the rabbi it is translated as master. When it relates simply to one who gives instruction it is translated teacher.



I understand what you're saying. But the KJV doesn't use the word teacher at all...


----------



## MW (Jun 9, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> I understand what you're saying. But the KJV doesn't use the word teacher at all...



You are mistaken.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 9, 2017)

Logan said:


> Patrick, I often benefit from your posts but it seems quite uncharitable to pretend I include the NWT as a translation of Scripture. But yes, the majesty is intrinsic to Scripture and the translation will have a majesty in so far as it represents Scripture. The point being that it is not the language used in translation, but Scripture's intrinsic nature (regardless of translation) that is the majesty the WCF references.


Logan,

Forgive me for using your post to make a point I anticipated to be in evidence in your rejoinder. That is, the term "Scripture" means something more than mere translation of words. That we do not call just any whims of men, "Scripture" is evident in the WCF portion that I cited above.


----------



## KMK (Jun 9, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> I’m a Received Text onlyist who sees a great need for a faithful but *readable* Bible version which is based on the RT.





tdh86 said:


> I did try to be very clear in my initial post that I am at the editing stage of the NT. In other words, it's pretty much finished so I was looking for people who were interested enough in the project to consider proofreading it for me.



Actually, your OP began with a presupposition. It is that presupposition that is being scrutinized. 

I am not sure how much time you have spent studying this forum, but you shouldn't be surprised at these responses. This is the PB after all.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 10, 2017)

KMK said:


> Actually, your OP began with a presupposition. It is that presupposition that is being scrutinized.
> 
> I am not sure how much time you have spent studying this forum, but you shouldn't be surprised at these responses. This is the PB after all.



Well, it was actually just a bit of background to show where I'm approaching it from but, no, I can't say I'm massively surprised!!


----------



## Parmenas (Jun 10, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Or just do what Tyndale did, go for the lowest common denominator. What would the plough-boy understand? Hey, if it's good enough for Tyndale..



I find it interesting how those who attack the Authorised Version say this, even with the knowledge that the AV translators drew considerably from Tyndale's translation. There is no divide whatsoever between Tyndale and the Authorised Version. In fact, it is the polar opposite: perhaps more than half, a majority, of the Authorised Version is Tyndale's translation!

Tyndale did not aim for the lowest common denominator. He did not ask, ”What would the illiterate, uneducated plough-boy understand?“ He aimed to make it so the plough-boy could know the word of God in his own tongue.

”I defie the Pope and all his lawes. If God spare my life, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture, than he doust.“ — William Tyndale

James 1:21, Tyndale
Wherfore laye a parte all fylthynes all superfluite of maliciousnes and receave with meknes the worde yt is grafted in you which is able to save youre soules.

James 1:21, 1611 AV
Wherefore lay apart all filthinesse, and superfluitie of naughtinesse, & receiue with meeknesse the engrafted word, which is able to saue your soules.

James 1:21, 1769 AV
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

"Good enough for Tyndale"!

Edit: The Tyndale translation is available online here.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 10, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> I find it interesting how those who attack the Authorised Version say this, even with the knowledge that the AV translators drew considerably from Tyndale's translation. There is no divide whatsoever between Tyndale and the Authorised Version. In fact, it is the polar opposite: perhaps more than half, a majority, of the Authorised Version is Tyndale's translation!
> 
> Tyndale did not aim for the lowest common denominator. He did not ask, ”What would the illiterate, uneducated plough-boy understand?“ He aimed to make it so the plough-boy could know the word of God in his own tongue.
> 
> ...



Firstly, if you read my posts then you'd know what I'm not attacking the AV at all. I think it's an incredible translation and has been divinely blessed throughout it's history.
I'm also completely aware of the Tyndale/1611 crossover. I'm not saying Tyndale was easy reading and the KJV isn't. I'm saying that Tyndale put the Word of God in the ploughboy's language. If he had translated it today then it would have sounded very different in the same way that the 1611 translators' aim of making the Bible to be understandable by the most vulgar would mean that if they were translating today then they would have used modern language. Language changed sometimes significantly. The 1611 quote about being understood by the most vulgar is a prime example. Vulgar now means rude, crass and objectionable. In 1611 vulgar was used to describe the common man on the street. The evolution of language isn't something to be scared of.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 10, 2017)

Wighardus said:


> I find it interesting how those who attack the Authorised Version say this, even with the knowledge that the AV translators drew considerably from Tyndale's translation. There is no divide whatsoever between Tyndale and the Authorised Version. In fact, it is the polar opposite: perhaps more than half, a majority, of the Authorised Version is Tyndale's translation!
> 
> Tyndale did not aim for the lowest common denominator. He did not ask, ”What would the illiterate, uneducated plough-boy understand?“ He aimed to make it so the plough-boy could know the word of God in his own tongue.
> 
> ...


What is interesting is that many would hold that the Geneva Bible was actually a better translation of that time then the KJV itself...


----------



## Logan (Jun 13, 2017)

I found a more full reference to the allusion I made earlier:

In 1653, an order was made by the Long Parliament to revise the Authorized Version for various reasons. One of the revisers was to be John Owen, and Dr. Thomas Goodwin, Dr. Tuckney, and Mr. Joseph Caryl were to be appointed as supervisors over the work. Ultimately it ended because of the dissolution of parliament.

One of the statements in the bill (pg 345) was:
"And it being now above forty years since our new translation was finished, divers of the heads of colleges and many other learned persons (that coming later have the advantage to stand as on the heads of the former) in their public sermons (and in print also) have often held out to their hearers and readers that the Hebrew or Greek may better be rendered, as they mention, than as it is in our newest and best translation: some of the places seeming to be very material, and crying aloud for the rectifying of them, if the truth be as it is so affirmed, and published by them, and here in some MSS. presented to us:"

And one of the proposed revisers, John Row, I believe, submitted a detailed list of particular points that required revision, most poignant to me was "That Ingl. words (not understood in Scotland) be idiomatiz'd." 

If this was only 40 years after its publication, why is it unthinkable it might be a good idea 400 years after? When will it ever be a good idea?


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2017)

Logan said:


> If this was only 40 years after its publication, why is it unthinkable it might be a good idea 400 years after? When will it ever be a good idea?



The answer to your question is in your historical statement. Where is the reforming Parliament? Where is the like of John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Anthony Tuckney, and Joseph Caryl? Reformed Presbyterians hold to the attainments of the first and second reformation together with the establishment principle. Without "unifying" and "reforming" conditions there is no reason to expect a "unified" and "reformed" attainment.


----------



## Logan (Jun 14, 2017)

My first thought is that it didn't stop the Geneva Bible. That said, I am genuinely curious as to whether you think this holds for all English speaking nations or just those under the crown?


----------



## MW (Jun 14, 2017)

Logan said:


> My first thought is that it didn't stop the Geneva Bible. That said, I am genuinely curious as to whether you think this holds for all English speaking nations or just those under the crown?



Anyone with gifts and ability could translate the Scriptures. Every trained minister could make his own translation and every congregation could have its own version. This makes translations liable to become a divisive tool.

The teachings of holy Scripture should serve as binding rules on the translator. The unity and maturity of the church should be one of the teachings given priority, as the exalted Head of the church has given the gift of pastors and teachers to the church for this express purpose, Eph. 4:11-14. It is the duty of every member of the body of Christ to "speak the same thing," and to "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," 1 Cor. 1:10. Holy Scripture not only does not teach ecclesiastical anarchy, individualism, and independence, but it outrightly discourages it and warns against its evils.

This is one of the reasons that we have subordinate standards -- to maintain the unity of the faith to which the church has attained. What applies to the subordinate standard subordinately must apply to the supreme standard supremely. Wherever there is an English speaking church which stands on the attainments of the reformation there will be an implicit obligation to the translation of the Bible which has shaped that reformation.

The Geneva Bible was an excellent translation, but many of our reforming forbears recognised the superior accuracy of the Authorised Version, and they especially respected the fact it was the established Bible. The establishment principle is acknowledged in the Geneva Bible and the Epistle to Queen Elizabeth recongises the duty of the civil magistrate to establish the word of God and rule by its dictates:

"Moreover, the marvellous diligence and zeal of Jehoshaphat, Josiah, and Hezekiah are, by the singular providence of God, left as an example to all godly rulers to reform their countries, and to establish the word of God with all speed, lest the wrath of God fall upon them from the neglecting thereof. For these excellent kings did not only embrace the word promptly and joyfully, but also procured earnestly, and commanded the same to be taught, preached, and maintained through all their countries and dominions — binding them and all their subjects, both great and small, with solemn protestations and covenants before God, to obey the word, and walk after the ways of the Lord. Yea, and in the days of King Asa it was enacted that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be slain, whether he were small or great, man or woman."

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------

