# Accuracy of the KJV



## BibleCyst

Dear Brethren,

It's seems to be a commonly held assumption that the King James, after 400 years, still ranks among the most accurate translations of God's Holy Word into English. I'm seeking clarification on this. Google is not helping; too many KJV-Only results.

Putting aside differences in manuscripts, how accurate is the KJV compared to a translation such as the NASB? Was the KJV translated "word for word," when possible, or does it have characteristics of dynamic equivalence? There's no doubt our knowledge and understanding of Hebrew and Greek has improved since the days of the KJV. If the KJV was translated "word for word" when possible, how does this affect the accuracy of the KJV today?

Thanks!


----------



## Rufus

Some words in the KJV are archaic (i.e. the meanings changed).


----------



## LawrenceU

The KJV was done with a very careful sense of accuracy. It still is one of the most accurate versions around when compared to its underlying text; amazingly so when one considers the idiomatic shifts that take place in translation. Ryken makes a very good argument that it is the grand-daddy of all Essentially Literal translations.


----------



## Marrow Man

An example of a "dynamic equivalence" in the KJV would be in Romans 6:2a. The KJV has the translation "God forbid," even though the words "God" and "forbid" are nowhere in the text. The NASB, on the other hand, translates _me genoito_ more literally as "may it never be."


----------



## BibleCyst

I can see already that this thread is going to be fascinating! Thanks!


----------



## JM

Just finished Ryken's book the other day. He seems to think highly of the AV and gives some examples where the AV outshines modern translations.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Two distinctive features of the Authorised Version lend particular credibility to claims of superior accuracy in translation. First, the Authorised Version makes use of italics to distinguish words in the English translation which are not present in the original language but are used to contribute to understanding and proper English. Secondly, the Authorised Version utilizes the old English forms of the second person singular and plural (e.g., thou, thee, ye) to communicate these crucial distinctions in English translation.

For a good essay on the use of italics, see "Why is that writing slanted?" by D.E. Anderson.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

I don't know about it these days. It has some problems. One Hebrew scholar on the board pointed out Proverbs 29:18 as a glaring error in the KJV. The use of "God forbid" as the poster above pointed out is pretty bad. The word Unicorn is used. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/proverbs-29-18-KJV-vs-every-other-translation-67246/

My honest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.

I've never been a KJV onlyist but I did claim to be a KJV supremacist before because that was the bible I was raised with and it had been used for so many years, but that is just a sentimental feeling. I think that as far as what is available to us now the KJV is towards the end of the list. I prefer the modern translations.

I like ESV, NASB, NIV, and now even the HCSB. I received each one with criticism but each has grown on me in one way or another. I think they are all superior to the KJV. The NKJV is good but I wonder if it is sound to use the received text as opposed to the critical text. I'm really starting to lean toward the critical text. It's very hard to defend the received text.


----------



## au5t1n

For every improvement over the KJV in the NASB or ESV, there are a hundred dynamic watering-downs of a more literal translation present in the KJV.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Osage Bluestem said:


> The use of "God forbid" as the poster above pointed out is pretty bad.


Don't be too quick to dismiss this rendering, especially considering the interesting correspondence from the Septuagint.


> The Greek literally means, ‘May it not be!’ but since it is an exclamation of abhorrence, some scholars, like Professor John Murray, have defended the AV rendering. Murray writes, ‘It really needs the force of the expression given in our version “God forbid”’. In a footnote, Murray says, ‘me genoito corresponds to a Hebrew expression and actually occurs in the LXX of Gen 44:7,17; Josh 22:29; 24:16; 1 Kgs 21:3. The Hebrew expression is sometimes used with names for God (1 Sam 24:6—“The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master”. See also: 26:11; 1 Kgs 21:3; 1 Chron 11:19; Job 34:10)’. He concludes: ‘Hence our English expression “God forbid” has biblical precedent. The Greek me genoito, indicating the recoil of abhorrence, needs the strength of this English rendering derived from the Hebrew’.
> ("The Accuracy of the Authorised Version," by Malcom Watts)


----------



## VictorBravo

Osage Bluestem said:


> My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.


 
David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.

The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

VictorBravo said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.
> 
> The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.
Click to expand...

 
I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blessed with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.


----------



## MW

If "me genoito" is an idiomatic expression designed to reflect abhorrence it is accurate to make this phrase serve the same function in any target language into which it is translated. It takes in an understanding of the "dynamics" of language but it is not technically correct to call this dynamic equivalence. Semantics is a function of a language's dynamics. Translating the same word in different ways reflects a knowledge of semantics. Dynamic equivalence, however, does not aim to recreate the dynamics of language, but to convert "thought-forms" into the thought forms of the target language.


----------



## Notthemama1984

BibleCyst said:


> Putting aside differences in manuscripts, how accurate is the KJV compared to a translation such as the NASB?





Osage Bluestem said:


> I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today


----------



## au5t1n

Osage Bluestem said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.
> 
> The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blesses with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
Click to expand...

 
I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

austinww said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.
> 
> The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blesses with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
Click to expand...

 
I was in my KJV supremacist phase when I was a member of a PCA church. I was virtually the only one there with a KJV. I was involved in a Thursday morning bible study with the pastor and some elders and other men and they tolerated me using the KJV but always threw out little nuggets that stuck in my mind as to why they didn't use it and why the other versions were better. When it was my turn to read I read from my KJV and the pastor would often correct the rendering when I was finished. I am actually thankful to them for teaching me and bringing me out of that phase. They were patient with me. I went back later when everythign had sunk in and showed them that I was using an NIV Thompson Chain Reference. They were pleased.

In the Baptist church I am a member of now virtually no one uses the KJV. The pastor preaches out of the NIV. I have learned to use many different translations. However right now I trust the ESV most.


----------



## VictorBravo

Osage Bluestem said:


> I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blessed with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.


 
But the complaints you raise have nothing to do with the manuscripts. All of the major translations, as far as I can tell, rely on the same Masoretic Text language as the KJV for the passage from Proverbs you cited. I'm pretty sure that they all rely primarily on the Masoretic text for OT translation in general, just like the KJV. Sure, there may be a footnote referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls occasionally, but I don't think the manuscript issue is an argument for the OT passages.

And for the passages with "God forbid," there is no difference in the underlying Greek manuscripts. It is a translator's choice, not a manuscript issue.


----------



## au5t1n

Osage Bluestem said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.
> 
> The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blesses with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was in my KJV supremacist phase when I was a member of a PCA church. I was virtually the only one there with a KJV. I was involved in a Thursday morning bible study with the pastor and some elders and other men and they tolerated me using the KJV but always threw out little nuggets that stuck in my mind as to why they didn't use it and why the other versions were better. When it was my turn to read I read from my KJV and the pastor would often correct the rendering when I was finished. I am actually thankful to them for teaching me and bringing me out of that phase. They were patient with me. I went back later when everythign had sunk in and showed them that I was using an NIV Thompson Chain Reference. They were pleased.
> 
> In the Baptist church I am a member of now virtually no one uses the KJV. The pastor preaches out of the NIV. I have learned to use many different translations. However right now I trust the ESV most.
Click to expand...

 
1. The PCA isn't the only Presbyterian denomination. As I mentioned, there are several that have the KJV as their official denomination-wide translation. That alone makes it untrue that it is only used in "fundamentalist" churches. I'm just trying to make sure we're fair.

2. My experience is sort of the opposite of yours. When I bring a KJV to the sermon and my pastor preaches from the ESV, consistently, repeatedly, numerous times, he has corrected his own translation, saying "The Hebrew here actually says..." and consistently he then states what I read in my Bible that was different while he was reading.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

VictorBravo said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blessed with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the complaints you raise have nothing to do with the manuscripts. All of the major translations, as far as I can tell, rely on the same Masoretic Text language as the KJV for the passage from Proverbs you cited. I'm pretty sure that they all rely primarily on the Masoretic text for OT translation, just like the KJV. Sure, there may be a footnote referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls occasionally, but I don't think the manuscript issue is an argument for the OT passages.
> 
> And for the passages with "God forbid," there is no difference in the underlying Greek manuscripts. It is a translator's choice, not a manuscript issue.
Click to expand...

 
I agree that the manuscripts the the OT are virtually the same the major differences are in the NT. However, we have more linguistic resources and ease of communication in the modern age. That makes the difference in the translation of the OT, communication and education. The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.


----------



## au5t1n

Osage Bluestem said:


> I agree that the manuscripts the the OT are virtually the same the major differences are in the NT. However, we have more linguistic resources and ease of communication in the modern age. That makes the difference in the translation of the OT, communication and education. The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.



We also need to consider translation methodology. Superior resources, okay, sure. You'd think, then, that the ESV would be a more accurate translation, but consistently it is less so. Why? Because translation methodology makes a difference too. The ESV is a good translation, but it's simply not true to state categorically that it is more accurate than the KJV across the board. Many scholars feel the opposite.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

austinww said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the manuscripts the the OT are virtually the same the major differences are in the NT. However, we have more linguistic resources and ease of communication in the modern age. That makes the difference in the translation of the OT, communication and education. The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also need to consider translation methodology. Superior resources, okay, sure. You'd think, then, that the ESV would be a more accurate translation, but consistently it is less so. Why? Because translation methodology makes a difference too. The ESV is a good translation, but it's simply not true to state categorically that it is more accurate than the KJV across the board. Many scholars feel the opposite.
Click to expand...

 
You can find an advocate for virtually anything, especially the KJV. From what I have seen, however, the NASB and the ESV are respected as the most accurate english translations these days. I'm sure there will be another better version soon.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Osage Bluestem said:


> I was in my KJV supremacist phase when I was a member of a PCA church. I was virtually the only one there with a KJV. I was involved in a Thursday morning bible study with the pastor and some elders and other men and they tolerated me using the KJV but always threw out little nuggets that stuck in my mind as to why they didn't use it and why the other versions were better. When it was my turn to read I read from my KJV and the pastor would often correct the rendering when I was finished. I am actually thankful to them for teaching me and bringing me out of that phase. They were patient with me. I went back later when everythign had sunk in and showed them that I was using an NIV Thompson Chain Reference. They were pleased.



You cannot take an experience with one church and conclude that it is the denominational stance.


----------



## MW

Osage Bluestem said:


> The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.


 
I suppose the relevant questions are, Were the resources which they possessed adequate, and, Did they utilise these resources to produce an accurate translation?

For what it's worth, scholars will sometimes prefer an older translation of a classic because its standards of "literacy" are far more conducive to a more accurate translation.


----------



## DMcFadden

A few years ago, full of myself and confident of the dismissive attitude of my Greek and NT profs almost 40 years ago (man I must be old!), my only translation was the NIV.

My shift came in the early part of the last decade when the ESV came out and I fell helpless before the mesmerizing powers of Crossway's advertising machine. 

However, after making the KJV a bit of a hobby this 400th anniversary year (last week), reading several of the better books (e.g., Ryken, McGrath, Nicolson, etc.) and viewing the two new DVD's (_KJB - the book that Changed the World_ and _The Making of the King James Bible_), I have gained a whole new respect for the KJV.

Most people class the NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV and some (including me) would add the HCSB in the essentially literal, word-for-word, formal correspondence, etc. category. It seems like every translator has their own cute term for trying to formally correspond to the original.

It is pretty unhelpful, however, to ask what is the MOST literal translation. The "MOST" literal translation would be no translation at all, merely an interlinear. The NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB all attempt to render the Bible into understandable English. In doing so, they all make judgment calls on the "right" translation of countless words, grammatical constructions, and literary devices.

Beyond this, a serious case can be made that relying so heavily upon three texts buried in the Egyptian desert near hotbeds of Christological heretics does not mean that we are using "better" (let alone the "best") texts. When you consider that all of our modern English translations (except for the KJV, and NKJV among the major translations) depend upon manuscripts representing less than 10% of the extant Greek manuscripts, I would not be so quick to dismiss the KJV folks as a bunch of ignorant fundamentalists.

I'm essentially an ESV man (like Ryken), but WOW do I admire, respect, appreciate, stand in awe of, and honor the memory of the KJV translators. They done good. Real good.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Chaplainintraining said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in my KJV supremacist phase when I was a member of a PCA church. I was virtually the only one there with a KJV. I was involved in a Thursday morning bible study with the pastor and some elders and other men and they tolerated me using the KJV but always threw out little nuggets that stuck in my mind as to why they didn't use it and why the other versions were better. When it was my turn to read I read from my KJV and the pastor would often correct the rendering when I was finished. I am actually thankful to them for teaching me and bringing me out of that phase. They were patient with me. I went back later when everythign had sunk in and showed them that I was using an NIV Thompson Chain Reference. They were pleased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot take an experience with one church and conclude that it is the denominational stance.
Click to expand...

 
I certainly don't. I'm just sharing my personal experience. There just aren't near as many KJV churches as compared with modern translation churches these days. I predict in 30 years time there will be virtually no KJV churches outside of the fundameltalist catagory or the catagory of churches who's goal is to continue the exact practices of a past generation. It's just inevitable that the new translations will become more and more standard as the old generations pass away.


----------



## DMcFadden

Afterthought:

The KJV is probably the only work of art ever completed by a committee.

6 teams in three places with diverse theological points of view (e.g., puritan vs. high church) consisting of almost 50 (at least 47) men just do NOT produce this level of excellence!

Ryken is quite correct in opining that the KJV translators sought to render the poetry (1/3 by most counts) of the Bible in a way that did more than inform the mind and appeal to the will. Like any good poetry, they believed that the divine author intended to touch the affections as well. When you compare the KJV to the insipid pedestrian pedantry of some modern translations, it is enough to make one want to cry.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

DMcFadden said:


> A few years ago, full of myself and confident of the dismissive attitude of my Greek and NT profs almost 40 years ago (man I must be old!), my only translation was the NIV.
> 
> My shift came in the early part of the last decade when the ESV came out and I fell helpless before the mesmerizing powers of Crossway's advertising machine.
> 
> However, after making the KJV a bit of a hobby this 400th anniversary year (last week), reading several of the better books (e.g., Ryken, McGrath, Nicolson, etc.) and viewing the two new DVD's (_KJB - the book that Changed the World_ and _The Making of the King James Bible_), I have gained a whole new respect for the KJV.
> 
> Most people class the NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV and some (including me) would add the HCSB in the essentially literal, word-for-word, formal correspondence, etc. category. It seems like every translator has their own cute term for trying to formally correspond to the original.
> 
> It is pretty unhelpful, however, to ask what is the MOST literal translation. The "MOST" literal translation would be no translation at all, merely an interlinear. The NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB all attempt to render the Bible into understandable English.  In doing so, they all make judgment calls on the "right" translation of countless words, grammatical constructions, and literary devices.
> 
> Beyond this, a serious case can be made that relying so heavily upon three texts buried in the Egyptian desert near hotbeds of Christological heretics does not mean that we are using "better" (let alone the "best") texts. When you consider that all of our modern English translations (except for the KJV, and NKJV among the major translations) depend upon manuscripts representing less than 10% of the extant Greek manuscripts, I would not be so quick to dismiss the KJV folks as a bunch of ignorant fundamentalists.
> 
> I'm essentially an ESV man (like Ryken), but WOW do I admire, respect, appreciate, stand in awe of, and honor the memory of the KJV translators. They done good. Real good.


 
I share this view. Even the part about the HCSB  it's growing on me as I read it. I'm realy enjoying it and certainly didn't think I would. But I am one tha has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new translation.


----------



## VictorBravo

DMcFadden said:


> However, after making the KJV a bit of a hobby this 400th anniversary year (*last week*), reading several of the better books (e.g., Ryken, McGrath, Nicolson, etc.) and viewing the two new DVD's (_KJB - the book that Changed the World_ and _The Making of the King James Bible_), I have gained a whole new respect for the KJV.


 
Dennis! Four months ago I searched all over the internet trying to find the actual publication date of the KJV. My wife and I wanted to celebrate it. But I came up with nothing. Now you tell me, _after the fact_. 

I guess I was just too much occupied by the things of the world to notice May 2. Now I have to wait another 100 years for that cake we were going to have. . . .


----------



## Notthemama1984

Osage Bluestem said:


> It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church





Osage Bluestem said:


> I'm just sharing my personal experience



I was attempting to point out that it seems you used your personal experience to make the blanket statement that the KJV is used seldom outside of fundamentalist churches, and that your experience is not sufficient to make such a claim.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

armourbearer said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the relevant questions are, Were the resources which they possessed adequate, and, Did they utilise these resources to produce an accurate translation?
> 
> For what it's worth, scholars will sometimes prefer an older translation of a classic because its standards of "literacy" are far more conducive to a more accurate translation.
Click to expand...


I believe the scholars did an outstanding job with what they had. And given the manuscripts they had they made a pretty accurate and literal translation. However, as we know now their New Testament manuscripts leave a lot to be desired and have since been corrected broadly by the modern translations that use the best available manuscripts and resources available to ensure we have the most accurate english renderings possible for what we have now. So indeed our bible (mostly the NT) is very different from the bible of the KJV scholars. There is on average 24 fewer entire NT verses in the older manscripts than there are in the ones used by the KJV which leads us to believe that scribes and copiests added text of their own into the text. That's why we have the newer translations based on the better and older manuscripts to clear up this problem. But there is no possible way the KJV scholars could have known that so they aren't at fault. It is indeed sad though, that some of those copy errors and insertions were influential and responsible for divisions in the body of Christ.


----------



## VictorBravo

Now an afterthought to my response to Dennis--the May 2 date appears to have no documentary support. That means I can still celebrate, just like we were planning.

mythbusters-2-may-2-publication-date-of-KJV/

So, brother, you are off the hook.


----------



## au5t1n

Osage Bluestem said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the relevant questions are, Were the resources which they possessed adequate, and, Did they utilise these resources to produce an accurate translation?
> 
> For what it's worth, scholars will sometimes prefer an older translation of a classic because its standards of "literacy" are far more conducive to a more accurate translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the scholars did an outstanding job with what they had. And given the manuscripts they had they made a pretty accurate and literal translation. However, as we know now their New Testament manuscripts leave a lot to be desired and have since been corrected broadly by the modern translations that use the best available manuscripts and resources available to ensure we have the most accurate english renderings possible for what we have now. So indeed our bible (mostly the NT) is very different from the bible of the KJV scholars. There is on average 24 fewer entire NT verses in the older manscripts than there are in the ones used by the KJV which leads us to believe that scribes and copiests added text of their own into the text. That's why we have the newer translations based on the better and older manuscripts to clear up this problem. But there is no possible way the KJV scholars could have known that so they aren't at fault. It is indeed sad though, that some of those copy errors and insertions were influential and responsibel for divisions int he body of Christ.
Click to expand...

 
You have no idea what you have gotten yourself into.


----------



## VictorBravo

austinww said:


> You have no idea what you have gotten yourself into.



Yup. 

David, may I suggest a search on the PB forums regarding the great debates over the CT vs the TR before going further on blanket statements over manuscripts? There is much more to the issue than what you have presented. Probably 3 months worth of steady reading, at least.

Now's a good time for me to go to bed. Be nice, everyone.


----------



## VictorBravo

One last thing, as a moderator:

The original post wanted the discussion to leave aside manuscript issues. Let's put the thread back on that track.


----------



## au5t1n

Moving back to translation methodology (since manuscripts are out), I explained some of my scepticism behind the ESV's methodology compared to the KJV's here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/esv-calvinists-67062/index2.html#post860533 This is just one of many, many examples I have stumbled across (No, I wasn't looking). You also get things like "worthless men" in the ESV instead of "sons of Belial," or "every male" instead of "everyone that pisseth against the wall," or "Preparing your minds for action" instead of "Gird up the loins of your mind." The list goes on. We'd better have a really good excuse for replacing entire phrases that the Holy Spirit inspired. So much for not one "jot or tittle."


----------



## Notthemama1984

In terms of methodology I only know of literal vs. dynamic. Are you talking about this type of methodology or something completely different?

(Just trying to make sure I am on the same page as everyone else)


----------



## au5t1n

Chaplainintraining said:


> In terms of methodology I only know of literal vs. dynamic. Are you talking about this type of methodology or something completely different?
> 
> (Just trying to make sure I am on the same page as everyone else)


 
Yes, but of course each of those categories can be further divided; otherwise the NASB and the ESV wouldn't be so different. There are degrees of literalness. In my opinion the ESV is less so than the KJV on a fairly consistent basis. The NASB is better, though it does the same thing on occasion. Even the KJV does it sometimes, but far less often and with italics to show you where words have been used to clarify.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Would Robert Young's Literal Translation be the most "literal?" I know Dr. Gentry uses this translation (or at least did in a sermon I heard).


----------



## au5t1n

Chaplainintraining said:


> Would Robert Young's Literal Translation be the most "literal?" I know Dr. Gentry uses this translation (or at least did in a sermon I heard).


 
It's very literal, but it isn't in grammatical English, so I don't think it ought to be considered a translation proper. It's more of an attempt at "Greek in English," sort of like Signed English vs. American Sign Language, if you know the difference.


----------



## TimV

DMcFadden said:


> The KJV is probably the only work of art ever completed by a committee.



Why can't I regularly think of clever things like that. Or even rarely.


----------



## ddharr

Besides being authorized any inaccuracies in the KJ are well documented and known.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

austinww said:


> You have no idea what you have gotten yourself into.


----------



## nicnap

Osage Bluestem said:


> I believe the scholars did an outstanding job with what they had. And given the manuscripts they had they made a pretty accurate and literal translation. However, as we know now their New Testament manuscripts leave a lot to be desired and have since been corrected broadly by the modern translations that use the best available manuscripts and resources available to ensure we have the most accurate english renderings possible for what we have now. So indeed our bible (mostly the NT) is very different from the bible of the KJV scholars. There is on average 24 fewer entire NT verses in the older manscripts than there are in the ones used by the KJV which leads us to believe that scribes and copiests added text of their own into the text. That's why we have the newer translations based on the better and older manuscripts to clear up this problem. But there is no possible way the KJV scholars could have known that so they aren't at fault. It is indeed sad though, that some of those copy errors and insertions were influential and responsible for divisions in the body of Christ.



I suggest you do some reading ... and not just in a cursory manner, on textual theory/criticism. Perhaps some Burgon, Hills, Leitis, and even Metzger, before you buy whole-hog into what you have just written.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

DMcFadden said:


> My shift came in the early part of the last decade when the ESV came out and I fell helpless before the mesmerizing powers of Crossway's advertising machine.


----------



## TimV

nicnap said:


> It is indeed sad though, that some of those copy errors and insertions were influential and responsible for divisions in the body of Christ.



Take Nicholas' advice and read up on the subject.


----------



## Marrow Man

austinww said:


> You also get things like "worthless men" in the ESV instead of "sons of Belial," or "every male" instead of "everyone that pisseth against the wall," or "Preparing your minds for action" instead of "Gird up the loins of your mind." The list goes on. We'd better have a really good excuse for replacing entire phrases that the Holy Spirit inspired. So much for not one "jot or tittle."



When the KJV uses an entire phrase that the Holy Spirit did not inspire (_me genoito_ translated as "God forbid"), the defense is that it is an idiomatic expression. But when the ESV decides to do likewise with other idiomatic expressions, it is condemned for doing so?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

nicnap said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the scholars did an outstanding job with what they had. And given the manuscripts they had they made a pretty accurate and literal translation. However, as we know now their New Testament manuscripts leave a lot to be desired and have since been corrected broadly by the modern translations that use the best available manuscripts and resources available to ensure we have the most accurate english renderings possible for what we have now. So indeed our bible (mostly the NT) is very different from the bible of the KJV scholars. There is on average 24 fewer entire NT verses in the older manscripts than there are in the ones used by the KJV which leads us to believe that scribes and copiests added text of their own into the text. That's why we have the newer translations based on the better and older manuscripts to clear up this problem. But there is no possible way the KJV scholars could have known that so they aren't at fault. It is indeed sad though, that some of those copy errors and insertions were influential and responsible for divisions in the body of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you do some reading ... and not just in a cursory manner, on textual theory/criticism. Perhaps some Burgon, Hills, Leitis, and even Metzger, before you buy whole-hog into what you have just written.
Click to expand...


Thanks.

I have read some of Burgon and Hills. THey are KJV only. There is even a Dean Burgon society that is KJV only. Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.

I don't know who Leitis is, I reject Bruce Metzger's higher criticism and the entire historical critical hermeneutic. He was a liberal. I employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic and believe Metzger went way to far into the realm of speculation.

I've read into the situation about Origen and the so called" corrupt "alexandrian" manuscripts..etc. I'm not convinced. It's all speculation.

But as the mod said we are getting off topic.


----------



## nicnap

Osage Bluestem said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I have read some of Burgon and Hills. THey are KJV only. There is even a Dean Burgon society that is KJV only. Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.
> 
> I don't know who Leitis is, I reject Bruce Metzger's higher criticism and the entire historical critical hermeneutic. He was a liberal. I employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic and believe Metzger went way to far into the realm of speculation.
> 
> I've read into the situation about Origen and the so called" corrupt "alexandrian" manuscripts..etc. I'm not convinced. It's all speculation.
> 
> But as the mod said we are getting off topic.



Brother, I don't mean to doubt you or question your integrity, but I don't know that you have _truly _read them; it seems you have merely dismissed them. Hills was not KJV only, and neither was Burgon. If you have read them it was not critically, or you did with a misunderstanding. Hills was not a fundamentalist, he was reformed, and a Harvard grad linguist. Metzger did go too far (but your criticism of him comes off as if you are parroting some one else's arguments, and not as if you have read him)... and you are missing an element in your hermeneutic; it should be historical-grammatical-theological. You are not recognizing your own speculation into the Alexandrian matter, and are presupposing as much as those who say that God providentially preserved His word (if you don't know the cases, then more reading is needed). Leitis is someone to read and consider, as I have pointed out; if you don't know who he is look him up and get to reading. 

Instead of just coming back in defense of yourself, take the advice given; then perhaps you might come back with more measured words in an area that it appears you don't have a firm grasp on.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Joshua said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so guilt by association, eh? I suppose we should stop reading Calvin, Luther, _et al_ because of all the misfits that use them. That's not the best way to pick your scholars.  You may not realize it, but your ignorant dismissive-ness comes across very pompously. I mean that as an encouragement for you to be more considerate in your cavalier sweeps.
Click to expand...

 
Sorry to offend. But my dismissiveness isn't done in ignorance. I've read Edward Hills and don't agree. I used to be a KJV supremacist although never an onlyist. The illustration simply proves an earlier point made in the thread. Also the fundamentalist mentioned hates calvinism and calls it a heresy. He's terrible. 

Thanks for the encouragement. I'll try to be more considerate.


----------



## jayce475

Osage Bluestem said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the scholars did an outstanding job with what they had. And given the manuscripts they had they made a pretty accurate and literal translation. However, as we know now their New Testament manuscripts leave a lot to be desired and have since been corrected broadly by the modern translations that use the best available manuscripts and resources available to ensure we have the most accurate english renderings possible for what we have now. So indeed our bible (mostly the NT) is very different from the bible of the KJV scholars. There is on average 24 fewer entire NT verses in the older manscripts than there are in the ones used by the KJV which leads us to believe that scribes and copiests added text of their own into the text. That's why we have the newer translations based on the better and older manuscripts to clear up this problem. But there is no possible way the KJV scholars could have known that so they aren't at fault. It is indeed sad though, that some of those copy errors and insertions were influential and responsible for divisions in the body of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you do some reading ... and not just in a cursory manner, on textual theory/criticism. Perhaps some Burgon, Hills, Leitis, and even Metzger, before you buy whole-hog into what you have just written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I have read some of Burgon and Hills. THey are KJV only. There is even a Dean Burgon society that is KJV only. Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.
> 
> I don't know who Leitis is, I reject Bruce Metzger's higher criticism and the entire historical critical hermeneutic. He was a liberal. I employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic and believe Metzger went way to far into the realm of speculation.
> 
> I've read into the situation about Origen and the so called" corrupt "alexandrian" manuscripts..etc. I'm not convinced. It's all speculation.
> 
> But as the mod said we are getting off topic.
Click to expand...

 
Then God forbid that Roman Catholics believe in a historical Jesus. I don't trust them.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

nicnap said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> I have read some of Burgon and Hills. THey are KJV only. There is even a Dean Burgon society that is KJV only. Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.
> 
> I don't know who Leitis is, I reject Bruce Metzger's higher criticism and the entire historical critical hermeneutic. He was a liberal. I employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic and believe Metzger went way to far into the realm of speculation.
> 
> I've read into the situation about Origen and the so called" corrupt "alexandrian" manuscripts..etc. I'm not convinced. It's all speculation.
> 
> But as the mod said we are getting off topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, I don't mean to doubt you, but I don't know that you have truly read them; it seems you have merely dismissed them. Hills was not KJV only, and neither was Burgon. If you have read them it was not critically, or you did with a misunderstanding. Hills was not a fundamentalist, he was reformed, and a Harvard grad linguist. (He is dead and doesn't run a website.) Metzger did go too far ... and you are missing an element in your hermeneutic; it should be historical-grammatical-theological. You are not recognizing your own speculation into the Alexandrian matter, and are presupposing as much as those who say that God providentially preserved His word (if you don't know the cases, then more reading). Leitis is someone to read and consider, as I have pointed out; if you don't know who he is look him up and get to reading. Instead of just coming back in defense of yourself, take the advice given; then perhaps you might come back with more measured words in an area that it appears you don't have a firm grasp on.
Click to expand...

 
I believe that God did indeed preserve his Word in the original languages. I disagree with the case that states it must be preserved only in the manuscripts that back up the KJV. Or as a KJV onlyist believes in the English of the KJV itself. I utterly reject that notion. You are correct. I do not know Leitis. I'll look him up. Thanks for the advice brother.

---------- Post added at 09:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 AM ----------




Joshua said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to offend. But my dismissiveness isn't done in ignorance. I've read Edward Hills and don't agree. I used to be a KJV supremacist although never an onlyist. The illustration simply proves an earlier point made in the thread. Also the fundamentalist mentioned hates calvinism and calls it a heresy. He's terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> No offense received here. That's fine if you don't agree with Hills, but you're rejection was related to association-by-guilt with that silly site you referenced. That serves no purpose in discrediting something with which you agree. It, rather, comes across as a veiled accusation that Hills was all such an one as that website fella was.
Click to expand...

 
I imagine Hills himself was innocent of KJV onlyist errors, however his body of work is done in such a way as it encourages KJV onlyism and is always scooped up and used by fundamentalist KJV only people. So, it's been pretty well claimed.


----------



## jayce475

Osage Bluestem said:


> I imagine Hills himself was innocent of KJV onlyist errors, however his body of work is done in such a way as it encourages KJV onlyism and is always scooped up and used by fundamentalist KJV only people. So, it's been pretty well claimed.




Dear brother, stop tarring Hills by virtue of association. It is not his fault that KJV-onlies use him, just as how it is not Calvin's fault that the hyper-Calvinists claim to follow his theology. And please note that not all of fundamentalism is crazy. Many of us fundamentalists still have sound minds.


----------



## discipulo

DMcFadden said:


> The KJV is probably the only work of art ever completed by a committee.



An earlier blessed occasion was that of the Septuagint LXX 

English is not my native language, so I can't say much about it, but I also find the KJV my favourite english version. 

I don´t want to dreail the thread, but here is a new Bible being published - vol by vol - *the Dort Study Bible *

*An English translation of the Annotations to the Dutch Staten Bijbel of 1637 in accordance with a decree of the Synod of Dort 1618-1619*

I will post about it more elsewhere, jut leave here the link:

IP/CMR Product 5


----------



## jayce475

Marrow Man said:


> But when the ESV decides to do likewise with other idiomatic expressions, it is condemned for doing so?



The number of "occurrences" is hardly comparable. And have we actually established that "God forbid" is actually an instance of dynamic equivalence?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

jayce475 said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine Hills himself was innocent of KJV onlyist errors, however his body of work is done in such a way as it encourages KJV onlyism and is always scooped up and used by fundamentalist KJV only people. So, it's been pretty well claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear brother, stop tarring Hills by virtue of association. It is not his fault that KJV-onlies use him, just as how it is not Calvin's fault that the hyper-Calvinists claim to follow his theology. And please note that not all of fundamentalism is crazy. Many of us fundamentalists still have sound minds.
Click to expand...

 
Sorry. I wasn't aware there were any calvinistic fundamentalists. Usually fundamentalists are vehemently opposed to our doctrine. However, they do call westboro baptist church fundamentalist and they are indeed hyper calvinistic. But I just call Westboro a cult. 

I don't mean to paint with a broad brush. I'm sure fundamentalism has a broad range of definitions. I imagine even my church falls into one of them.

I don't mean to tar and feather Hills either. I was just pointing out that the KJV only crowd loves his work.


----------



## au5t1n

Marrow Man said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also get things like "worthless men" in the ESV instead of "sons of Belial," or "every male" instead of "everyone that pisseth against the wall," or "Preparing your minds for action" instead of "Gird up the loins of your mind." The list goes on. We'd better have a really good excuse for replacing entire phrases that the Holy Spirit inspired. So much for not one "jot or tittle."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the KJV uses an entire phrase that the Holy Spirit did not inspire (_me genoito_ translated as "God forbid"), the defense is that it is an idiomatic expression. But when the ESV decides to do likewise with other idiomatic expressions, it is condemned for doing so?
Click to expand...

 
I didn't defend "God forbid." As I told Boliver, the KJV does the same thing but far less consistently.


----------



## Marrow Man

jayce475 said:


> The number of "occurrences" is hardly comparable. And have we actually established that "God forbid" is actually an instance of dynamic equivalence?



I believe I placed "dynamic equivalence" in quotation marks when I used it in an earlier post. I was simply indicating that this was an instance where the phrase used was not "word for word." Number is irrelevant; does the KJV use a non-literal rendering of an idiomatic expression or not? And if other translations are criticized for doing something similar, why is the same criticism not leveled at the KJV translation?


----------



## Marrow Man

austinww said:


> I didn't defend "God forbid." As I told Boliver, the KJV does the same thing but far less consistently.



Fair enough. But you do see my point. Jot and tittle is jot and tittle, regardless of frequency. I was just calling for consistency in our criticisms.


----------



## au5t1n

Marrow Man said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't defend "God forbid." As I told Boliver, the KJV does the same thing but far less consistently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. But you do see my point. Jot and tittle is jot and tittle, regardless of frequency. I was just calling for consistency in our criticisms.
Click to expand...

 
I see your point. For what it's worth, I do think that any translation into another language is going to require (and not wrongly) some slight adjustments to Hebrew and Greek idiom, but it is my opinion that there should be a good reason for each case and that it shouldn't be done to a greater degree than is necessary for clear understanding. I think the ESV is, on the whole, poorer at this than it is advertised to be. Sometimes the replacements seem almost arbitrary, when a straightforward translation would have made perfect sense.


----------



## Notthemama1984

austinww said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would Robert Young's Literal Translation be the most "literal?" I know Dr. Gentry uses this translation (or at least did in a sermon I heard).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's very literal, but it isn't in grammatical English, so I don't think it ought to be considered a translation proper. It's more of an attempt at "Greek in English," sort of like Signed English vs. American Sign Language, if you know the difference.
Click to expand...

 
I do know the difference between the Sign Languages. That really helped explain things. Thanks.


----------



## JennyG

> There's no doubt our knowledge and understanding of Hebrew and Greek has improved since the days of the KJV.


 (from the OP)

there's a bit of doubt in my mind about that. I can't say anything about Hebrew, but when it comes to the knowledge of the classical languages in general, I would say it has declined considerably even just within my own lifetime. 
Unless you have a broad solid base of learning to draw on in any discipline, - unless it's taught thoroughly and universally to every bright child from an early age,- then the cutting edge of scholarship in that discipline is certain to suffer. The classics aren't like science, with today's results ever superseding yesterday's (if you believe all you read). And I can't believe it's any different with Hebrew, as we move further and further from the milieu that produced the MSS and into an altogether alien culture, with all its antithetical thought-patterns.
If you were to measure today's best academics against those of a few generations ago, such as Burgon, I think they'd come out looking silly, leave alone those 17th Century divines.


----------



## Marrow Man

austinww said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't defend "God forbid." As I told Boliver, the KJV does the same thing but far less consistently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. But you do see my point. Jot and tittle is jot and tittle, regardless of frequency. I was just calling for consistency in our criticisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your point. For what it's worth, I do think that any translation into another language is going to require (and not wrongly) some slight adjustments to Hebrew and Greek idiom, but it is my opinion that there should be a good reason for each case and that it shouldn't be done to a greater degree than is necessary for clear understanding. I think the ESV is, on the whole, poorer at this than it is advertised to be. Sometimes the replacements seem almost arbitrary, when a straightforward translation would have made perfect sense.
Click to expand...

 
And I can respect that. Part of the problem I think you will fine with criticism of the renderings of idioms, though, is that they are far more common that we realize. Unless one has dug into the original languages and seen, for instance, the underlying Hebrew, they can be missed. An example is Jonah 4:10, which describes the demise of the gourd-vine. The KJV renders the last part of the verse "which came up in a night, and perished in a night" (the ESV, btw, uses an almost identical translation: "which came into being in a night and perished in a night"). OK, fine. The problem is that both are translating a Hebrew idiom which literally reads, "which a son of the night became and a son of the night perished"). Of course, that would sound very odd to the ears of an English reader, hence the translators' rendering. All I'm saying is don't fault one translation for doing this and give a free pass to the other.


----------



## christiana

One place the KJV outshines all others is Genesis 7:1 where God tells Noah to 'come' into the ark. That phrase 'come into the ark' has such great significance for the whole of the gospel where we are to come into Christ, our ark of safety.
All other versions that use 'enter' or 'go' totally change the significance and cause it to diminish the meaning. Yet, in prior discussions of this on PB posters state the word can have the different meanings. For me, this brings questions then to how perhaps all other words in scripture can be altered to mean what I'd prefer as well. Not a good thing when we think the words of scripture are not inerrant as they were written.


----------



## Marrow Man

JennyG said:


> There's no doubt our knowledge and understanding of Hebrew and Greek has improved since the days of the KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> (from the OP)
> 
> there's a bit of doubt in my mind about that. I can't say anything about Hebrew, but when it comes to the knowledge of the classical languages in general, I would say it has declined considerably even just within my own lifetime.
Click to expand...

 
A couple of things to keep in mind here. One is that the Greek of the NT is not classical Greek; it is actually written in koine (common) Greek, which, while similar, is not the same (Elizabethan English is similar, but not the same, as modern English, to use a crude analogy). As far as advances in the knowledge of Greek grammar goes, one that comes to mind is the Granville Sharp Rule -- an advancement since the day of the KJV, and one that has helped defend the deity of Christ directly from the NT text. In addition, as great a scholar and Christian gentleman as Dean Burgon may have been, he did not own a time machine. He would have been quite unaware of the many papyri discoveries of the 20th century, for instance.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I don't consider myself a fundamentalist but am a loyal KJV preacher. Now we might debate the definition of a fundamentalist. I suppose it all depend on who's using the word. But regardless of one's stance on the manuscripts and other issues, there is absolutely no excuse for any serious student of Scripture to hold the Authorized Version in contempt or to be in anyway dismissive of its monumental contribution to the Church of Christ for the last four hundred years.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Marrow Man said:


> One is that the Greek of the NT is not classical Greek; it is actually written in koine (common) Greek



This is another fallacy that circulates around. Each NT author wrote differently, so while some of the NT books are in Koine Greek, others such as the ones written by Luke are in more classical Greek. It is not true to say that the entire NT was written in Koine Greek, only some of it.


----------



## MW

Marrow Man said:


> [As far as advances in the knowledge of Greek grammar goes, one that comes to mind is the Granville Sharp Rule -- an advancement since the day of the KJV, and one that has helped defend the deity of Christ directly from the NT text.


 
Sorry to burst the "advancement" bubble, but modern approaches give greater weight to stylistic variation of the definite article and have restored the kind of understanding which the AV translators worked with -- a far more intuitive approach to language.


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill The Baptist said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> One is that the Greek of the NT is not classical Greek; it is actually written in koine (common) Greek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another fallacy that circulates around. Each NT author wrote differently, so while some of the NT books are in Koine Greek, others such as the ones written by Luke are in more classical Greek. It is not true to say that the entire NT was written in Koine Greek, only some of it.
Click to expand...

 
This is a bit like saying that the OT was not written in Hebrew because some of it is in Aramaic.

This is news to me, since I've actually taken Greek in seminary, it is not some rumor that I heard circulating around. Perhaps you have taken Greek as well. They taught us koine Greek, not classical Greek (I can't imagine what value the latter would have been since it was pretty much a dead language by the 1st century A.D., at least to the average person). We translated all of 1 John and all of Ephesians. It was koine Greek, not classical Greek.

It is simply incorrect and misleading to say "the ones written by Luke are in more classical Greek." The opening of the Gospel of Luke is in a stylized Greek (as is the book of Hebrews), but these are the exceptions to the NT. And while they are stylized, they still are not in what would be ordinarily termed classical Greek. Matthew, Mark, and John are written in koine Greek. Paul's letters and John's epistles are in koine Greek. Etc. etc. etc.

But don't take my word for it. Here is Bill Mounce, from _Basics of Biblical Greek_:



> The form of Greek used by writers from Homer (8th century B.C.) through Plato (4th century B.C.) is "Classical Greek." ... As the Greek language spread throughout the world and met other languages, it was altered (which is true of any language). The dialects also interacted with each other. Eventually this adaptation resulted in what today we call Koine Greek, the language, used by everyday people. ... It is this common, Koine Greek that is used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. (p. 1)



And from Daniel Wallace, _Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics_:



> The Koine was born out of the conquests of Alexander the Great. ... By the first century CE, Greek was the _lingua franca_ of the whole Mediterranean region and beyond. (p. 15)
> 
> Both New Testament Greek and Septuagint Greek are considered substrata of the Koine. (p. 17)
> 
> For the most part, the Greek of the NT is conversational [Koine] Greek in its syntax -- somewhat below the refinement and sentence structure of literary Koine, but above the level found in most papyri ... . Its style, on the other hand, is largely Semitic -- that is, since almost all of the writers of the NT books are Jews, their style of writing is shaped both by their religious background and by their linguistic background. (p. 29)


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I understand that the NT is not written in classical Greek, and I did not say that it was. I was simply objecting to the idea that it was all written in a type of simple, elementary Greek, which is what is generally implied when someone points out that the NT was written in Koine Greek. Both Charles Dickens and John Grisham technically wrote in modern English, but the result is hardly the same.


----------



## Marrow Man

armourbearer said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> [As far as advances in the knowledge of Greek grammar goes, one that comes to mind is the Granville Sharp Rule -- an advancement since the day of the KJV, and one that has helped defend the deity of Christ directly from the NT text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to burst the "advancement" bubble, but modern approaches give greater weight to stylistic variation of the definite article and have restored the kind of understanding which the AV translators worked with -- a far more intuitive approach to language.
Click to expand...

 
If "advancement" is not a suitable word, then substitute "development." As far as "modern approaches" goes. Daniel Wallace studies the rule in great detail in GGBB, noting that it has been greatly misunderstood and abused at times. In conclusion, he writes:



> On the other hand, Sharp's rule has also been misunderstood, the net effect being to lessen certainty as to its value in christologically pregnant texts. It has been applied with great hesitation to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 by Trinitarians in the past two centuries. However, a proper understanding of the rule shows it to have the highest degree of validity within the NT. Consequently, these two passages are as secure as any in the canon when it comes to identifying Christ as [theos].



My only point was to give an example of a grammar rule that had developed the knowledge of the koine Greek language since 1611 (Colwell's rule might be another). It was not meant to be a slight of the translators in any way. We must avoid both extremes so that we do not commit a chronological snobbery fallacy; modern language scholars do not necessarily know more because they are modern, but neither do they necessarily know less. More information is available today and language tools are more prevalent; on the other hand, education requirements and the like were perhaps far more demanding centuries ago, which I suspect was the substance of Jenny's comment. I remember reading somewhere that in order to receive a Th.D. during the period, one had to write a dissertation and then defend it before the college -- _in Latin_. Are there some scholars who could do that today? Perhaps. But I would suspect very few.


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill The Baptist said:


> I understand that the NT is not written in classical Greek, and I did not say that it was. I was simply objecting to the idea that it was all written in a type of simple, elementary Greek, which is what is generally implied when someone points out that the NT was written in Koine Greek. Both Charles Dickens and John Grisham technically wrote in modern English, but the result is hardly the same.


 
But that is not what you wrote:



> Each NT author wrote differently, so while some of the NT books are in Koine Greek, others such as the ones written by Luke are in more classical Greek. It is not true to say that the entire NT was written in Koine Greek, only some of it.



If you meant something else, then you need to be clearer in what you write.

Obviously Dickens and Grisham have stylistic differences -- they lived a century apart from one another. They were also from different countries and wrote different genres of literature for different audiences. To the best of my knowledge, neither wrote in Middle English or Elizabethan English.


----------



## JM

A quote from a blog post by Daniel Wallace about an annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature :

As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty.​
Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism | Parchment and Pen


----------



## MW

Marrow Man said:


> My only point was to give an example of a grammar rule that had developed the knowledge of the koine Greek language since 1611 (Colwell's rule might be another). It was not meant to be a slight of the translators in any way.


 
Point taken; but my point is that turning functions into rules is a problem because it detracts from the intuitive way in which a Greek reader would naturally read the text. The rule might be good for exegesis and analysis, but as a rule it rules out various stylistic functions of the definite article. Greek readers, as opposed to interpreters of a Greek text, would have a feel for the way the definite article functions which cannot be encapsulated in a rule. No doubt, more knowledge is an "advance" on less knowledge, but it cannot be considered an "organic development" when it takes away from the natural way in which a language would be understood.


----------



## Marrow Man

armourbearer said:


> Point taken; but my point is that turning functions into rules is a problem because it detracts from the intuitive way in which a Greek reader would naturally read the text. The rule might be good for exegesis and analysis, but as a rule it rules out various stylistic functions of the definite article. Greek readers, as opposed to interpreters of a Greek text, would have a feel for the way the definite article functions which cannot be encapsulated in a rule. No doubt, more knowledge is an "advance" on less knowledge, but it cannot be considered an "organic development" when it takes away from the natural way in which a language would be understood.



An excellent point.

The problem from our perspective is that we are so far removed from the language that we stumble over certain things. Certainly the original readers would have found these things far simpler! We do not have that luxury. And we have the tendency today to make exegetical mountains out of molehills (assuming that expression has the same meaning Down Under as it does here).


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Marrow Man said:


> If you meant something else, then you need to be clearer in what you write.



You're right, I wasn't very clear and I apologize. What I meant was that when people say that the NT was written in common (Koine) Greek, this is generally intended as a means of inferring that the KJV is not true to the original because it is not written in common, simple English, while newer versions are. I was simply pointing out that this is a fallacy because, while all of the NT is technically written in Koine Greek, it is not all in a basic or simple style of Koine Greek.


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill The Baptist said:


> You're right, I wasn't very clear and I apologize.



Apology accepted. I hope my comments were not too strong or offensive to you, brother.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Marrow Man said:


> Apology accepted. I hope my comments were not too strong or offensive to you, brother.



Not at all, I enjoy vigourous debate, even when I am proven wrong.


----------



## PaulMc

Dearly Bought said:


> Two distinctive features of the Authorised Version lend particular credibility to claims of superior accuracy in translation. First, the Authorised Version makes use of italics to distinguish words in the English translation which are not present in the original language but are used to contribute to understanding and proper English. Secondly, the Authorised Version utilizes the old English forms of the second person singular and plural (e.g., thou, thee, ye) to communicate these crucial distinctions in English translation.



I think this is one of the most vital points of the whole discussion and yet barely anything has been mentioned of it!

I for one would not want to be without italics marking words not in the original (which sometimes involves interpretation); I find it very hard to understand why among modern versions only the NKJV maintains this (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not familiar with ALL modern translations, but most).


----------



## au5t1n

PaulMc said:


> I for one would not want to be without italics marking words not in the original (which sometimes involves interpretation); I find it very hard to understand why among modern versions only the NKJV maintains this (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not familiar with ALL modern translations, but most).



The NASB does it too, and my Oxford Longprimer (KJV) does not.


----------



## PaulMc

austinww said:


> The NASB does it too, and my Oxford Longprimer (KJV) does not.


 
OK. I've never seen a KJV that doesn't have italics, something is wrong there!

But the NIV and ESV, two of the most popular modern versions, do not, do they?


----------



## au5t1n

PaulMc said:


> But the NIV and ESV, two of the most popular modern versions, do not, do they?



Correct.


----------



## JM

PaulMc said:


> OK. I've never seen a KJV that doesn't have italics




I didn't know you could get the AV without italics.


----------



## Marrow Man

OK, this is my dumb question for the day: when the KJV was published in 1611, did that version also have italics?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

my 1611 facsimile edition has the words in a lighter font.


----------



## Pilgrim

Marrow Man said:


> An example of a "dynamic equivalence" in the KJV would be in Romans 6:2a. The KJV has the translation "God forbid," even though the words "God" and "forbid" are nowhere in the text. The NASB, on the other hand, translates _me genoito_ more literally as "may it never be."



While the KJV rendering here may not be the most literal, does it really rise to the level of "dynamic equivalence?" Is there really that much difference between "God forbid" and "may it never be?" It seems to me that it doesn't rise to the level of the kinds of dynamic translations you find in so often in the NIV and especially the NLT, etc. 

In my admittedly somewhat novice opinion, it seems to me that there are many passages in which the KJV is more literal than the NASB, especially the 1995 NASB. Many times, especially in the OT, the NASB will adopt a more idiomatic English translation and will have the literal translation in the margin, while the literal translation will be reflected in the KJV text (and often the NKJV as well.)

Edit: After reading the whole thread I see that the _me genoito_ issue has already seen some discussion. I may be missing something but I still don't see a real difference between the meaning of "God forbid" and "may it never be" other than the latter apparently represents more of a strict word for word correspondence.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Another thing to keep in mind when translating are the differences in languages. For example, if I was to translate the English expression "it's raining cats and dogs" into another language, the most literal translation might not neccesarily be the best. They might take it as an apocalyptic omen instead of just an expression that means it is raining hard. An easier example would be the Spanish phrase "por favor". If I translated it literally into English it would be "for favor", but we all know that it means "please", so "for favor" would be the more literal translation, but "please" would be a better translation given the differences in the languages.


----------



## Marrow Man

Pilgrim said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> An example of a "dynamic equivalence" in the KJV would be in Romans 6:2a. The KJV has the translation "God forbid," even though the words "God" and "forbid" are nowhere in the text. The NASB, on the other hand, translates _me genoito_ more literally as "may it never be."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the KJV rendering here may not be the most literal, does it really rise to the level of "dynamic equivalence?" Is there really that much difference between "God forbid" and "may it never be?" It seems to me that it doesn't rise to the level of the kinds of dynamic translations you find in so often in the NIV and especially the NLT, etc.
> 
> In my admittedly somewhat novice opinion, it seems to me that there are many passages in which the KJV is more literal than the NASB, especially the 1995 NASB. Many times, especially in the OT, the NASB will adopt a more idiomatic English translation and will have the literal translation in the margin, while the literal translation will be reflected in the KJV text (and often the NKJV as well.)
> 
> Edit: After reading the whole thread I see that the _me genoito_ issue has already seen some discussion. I may be missing something but I still don't see a real difference between the meaning of "God forbid" and "may it never be" other than the latter apparently represents more of a strict word for word correspondence.
Click to expand...

 
I believe I addressed the issue of dynamic equivalence with regard to the phrase in post # 60 above. You may have missed that; it's a long thread. I placed "dynamic equivalency" in quotation marks on purpose to indicate I was not specifically calling it that, but showing it wasn't "word-for-word" at this point. The use of "non-literal" here might be a better phraseology.

In reality, it's a most peculiar problem. The words "God" and "forbid" are obviously not in the original language. So why the usage? It could be that it was a common idiom at the time. It might be a carryover from the Wycliffe Bible, but I am only speculating. I know for me (and this is strictly for me personally), seeing the phrase gives me pause. I would not use phrases like this in everyday speech because it seems (again, to me) to be a misuse of God's name. Perhaps I am being too strict in my adherence to the 3rd commandment, but I would rather err on the side of caution. I simply think there is an easier way to render the phrase -- one that is a far more literal translation of the actual text, and one that does not raise an issue of conscience like this with me.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Marrow Man said:


> OK, this is my dumb question for the day: when the KJV was published in 1611, did that version also have italics?


 
The KJV you buy today is not the 1611. It is a revision.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Amazon.com: KJV 1611 Edition Bible (9781418544171): Thomas Nelson: Books


Also I am pretty confident that Tim knows that the 1611 went through revisions.


----------



## JM

NASB, NIV, etc. have all gone through revisions...a revision is not a new translation.


----------



## Marrow Man

Right. I am asking if the original KJV in 1611, as it came off the printing press, had italics. It's completely a curiosity question. I don't care about later revisions, just the original version.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Marrow Man said:


> Right. I am asking if the original KJV in 1611, as it came off the printing press, had italics. It's completely a curiosity question. I don't care about later revisions, just the original version.


 
Changes in the King James version

They were set in smaller type.


----------



## Marrow Man

Osage Bluestem said:


> They were set in smaller type.



Very interesting. Not just a smaller type, but a different font as well! I was curious if italics was even a commonly used type of print at the time, but judging by the sophistication of the elaborate font used in the original printing, I'd say it would almost have to be.

Wow, that was truly informative. Thanks!


----------



## Pilgrim

Tim,

If I'm not mistaken, the Geneva Bible may have been the first English translation to use italics. I've seen that reported in a number of articles in the past. I'm not that familiar with the Geneva and I can't find any verses with italics in E-sword or online Bible sites. Maybe the use wasn't as widespread as in the KJV or could those resources be wrong? There are some occasional bracketed words in the Bishop's Bible in the various online sites and E-Sword, so apparently it had brackets. If it used italics I don't know why those programs wouldn't reflect it since it is reflected in the other versions. 

The Geneva also has "God forbid" in Rom. 6. Interestingly, according to various Bible programs and websites, both the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible have "God forbid" at the end of v. 1 instead of v. 2a. Tyndale has it at v. 2a. It appears that "God forbid" is in most if not all of the Reformation era English translations. You would think that divines and translators of that era would likely be more concerned with things like Third Commandment violations as taught in the Westminster Standards, for example, as compared to our day in which usage tends to be more casual and flippant. I'm not too well versed on these kinds of questions but I'm guessing you may be on to something with the suggestion that it may have been in the common idiom at that time. "God forbid" is also in the extremely literal RV and ASV, but I don't know if that may have simply been a carryover from the KJV. 

Jay P. Green's LITV and MKJV both have "Let it not be!" at Rom. 6:2.


----------



## J. Dean

Didn't James White write a book about the whole King James debate?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Marrow Man said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were set in smaller type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting. Not just a smaller type, but a different font as well! I was curious if italics was even a commonly used type of print at the time, but judging by the sophistication of the elaborate font used in the original printing, I'd say it would almost have to be.
> 
> Wow, that was truly informative. Thanks!
Click to expand...

 
You're welcome brother. They were very talented people. I think the prining back then was highly artistic and well thought out, however, I do find it difficult to read. 

As a side note, that type of printing was popular in Germany until recently. I have some German books in my library that use a very similar type to that used in the original KJV and they are from the early 20th century.


----------



## Philip

Osage Bluestem said:


> I have some German books in my library that use a very similar type to that used in the original KJV and they are from the early 20th century.



That particular script is called blackletter and was the type used by Gutenberg. The English-speaking world switched to a "Roman" script sometime in the 16th Century, apart from certain legal documents and important books, like the AV. Even today, legal documents often have headings in blackletter.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

P. F. Pugh said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have some German books in my library that use a very similar type to that used in the original KJV and they are from the early 20th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That particular script is called blackletter and was the type used by Gutenberg. The English-speaking world switched to a "Roman" script sometime in the 16th Century, apart from certain legal documents and important books, like the AV. Even today, legal documents often have headings in blackletter.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks. It's very beautiful. Not practical, but beautiful.


----------



## KaphLamedh

austinww said:


> I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.


 
Dr. Alan Cairns, pastor of Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, SC uses KJV. Cairns is one of my favorite preachers. 
John Piper, another favorite of mine uses ESV.

Personally I like to read KJV and ESV. KJV was the first English Bible I started to read, and same time I started to read NIV, but I found NIV too difficult to read. I my opinion NIV has too weird choices of words. So, I continued with KJV. Later ESV was published and it was great, it is great. I even bought Reformation Study Bible with ESV.
I have also read NASB, and still sometimes I read it, but to memorise texts, I have decided to read two English bibles and two Finnish Bibles (1776 and 1933/38 translations).

I don't care what people says, but Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Spurgeon and so on used KJV or Bibles which have very same manuscripts, so it is good enough for me.


----------



## torstar

KaphLamedh said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Alan Cairns, pastor of Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, SC uses KJV. Cairns is one of my favorite preachers.
> 
> 
> Do Free Presbyterian churches tend to use KJV? Those I have come across in person or through sermons preach from it.
> 
> (Dr. Paisley certainly preached from the KJV..)
> 
> Just asking...
Click to expand...


----------



## au5t1n

torstar said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Alan Cairns, pastor of Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, SC uses KJV. Cairns is one of my favorite preachers.
> 
> 
> Do Free Presbyterian churches tend to use KJV? Those I have come across in person or through sermons preach from it.
> 
> (Dr. Paisley certainly preached from the KJV..)
> 
> Just asking...
Click to expand...

 
From the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland's website:



> In view of these requirements, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland believes that it is important to assert, maintain and defend the best translation available in the English language. In 1961 the Synod passed a resolution which continues to express the Church's position. The Synod 'states its firm conviction that the Authorised Version is the best and most faithful translation of the Word of God to be found in the English language'. This then is the only English translation that is used in the public worship of the Church and recommended by the Church for family and private use.



From here:
The Importance of An Approved Translation Of The Bible

The Australian Free Church seems to be the same:
Australian Free Church - Home

I couldn't find information on whether the Free Church of Scotland (continuing) has the same rule.


----------



## torstar

Thanks Austin.

I think that Cairns and Paisley are the same denom, or at least were at some epic moments, not quite the same style though.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

_This then is the only English translation that is used in the public worship of the Church and recommended by the Church for *family and private use.*_

Sounds an awful lot like a KJVO position to me. Someone who is Free Presbyterian or familiar with them clear it up for me...


----------



## TimV

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Sounds an awful lot like a KJVO position to me.



The small number of Reformed people that hold to this view differ hugely from the Baptist KJV crowd in that the Reformed, due to better educational standards, admit that the TR and KJV have possible corruptions, where the Fundy Baptist KJVO crowd think that the liberal Dutch Catholic who put together the TR was able for some garbled reason to re-create the original writings word for word without fault.

Which naturally means that the Reformed KJVO agrees with the rest of us Reformed folk (99% or so) in principle but not in degree. We all think that the KJV and TR possibly have corruptions. It's just that the Free Presbyterians etc.. think that the corruptions are less numerous than most others.


----------



## jayce475

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> _This then is the only English translation that is used in the public worship of the Church and recommended by the Church for *family and private use.*_
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like a KJVO position to me. Someone who is Free Presbyterian or familiar with them clear it up for me...


 
The Free Presbyterians share the same position as us with regards to textual preservation and have preached at our pulpits at times.


----------



## au5t1n

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> _This then is the only English translation that is used in the public worship of the Church and recommended by the Church for *family and private use.*_
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like a KJVO position to me. Someone who is Free Presbyterian or familiar with them clear it up for me...


 
You should have bolded "recommended" too, I think. I'd highly suggest reading the article. Even apart from considering the KJV, the argument the article makes for uniformity of translation use is a good one. A denomination could just as well make the "official church translation" some other translation, if it were regarded as the best available, but in my opinion the concept of uniformity of translation is a good one. It is difficult for memorization and discussion that we have so many common translations, even within one denomination or one church.


----------



## DMcFadden

Part of the difficulty attaches to the connotations attached to KJVO. A person may "only" use the KJV and not fit into the constellation of significations attached to the label KJVO.

KJVO sometimes carries a nearly cultic belief that the Holy Spirit so superintended the preservation of the text that the translational decisions of the KJV translators are more authoritative than the original Hebrew and Greek!

We have had writers on the PB defend the KJV because . . . 

* The Byzantine manuscripts are more numerous (90%+) and some on the PB deem them superior to the Alexandrian texts behind the modern translations.

* The differentiation of the singular and plurals in the KJV offers greater clarity than modern English translations.

* 1/3 of the Bible is poetic and they believe that the KJV better conveys the affective aspects of the Bible than some of the more mundane prosaic renderings in English.

* The loss of a common Bible has been lamented and the preservation of the KJV is sometimes seen as an upholding of that which is good and valuable and time-tested.

One could accept an ESV or NASB as "the Bible," use them on occasion, and still preach/teach out of the KJV without holding to the odd views of some of the KJVO crowd.

In all fairness, however, most confessionally Reformed seminary grads were taught to use the Nestle/UBS Critical Text rather than the TR or Majority/Byzantine text.


----------



## KaphLamedh

DMcFadden said:


> Part of the difficulty attaches to the connotations attached to KJVO. A person may "only" use the KJV and not fit into the constellation of significations attached to the label KJVO.



I could be wrong, but many uses the bible that he/she first start to use. Sometimes they change to read other translation, like ESV has became quite popular and it is new translation. Some has said that it is literal translation like NASB, but easy to read like NIV. So, maybe ESV has the best parts of NASB and NIV.

One can uses only KJV, but not any part of KJVO movement.



DMcFadden said:


> KJVO sometimes carries a nearly cultic belief that the Holy Spirit so superintended the preservation of the text that the translational decisions of the KJV translators are more authoritative than the original Hebrew and Greek!


 
To demonize all other bible versions as Roman Bibles or as Pope's Bibles isn't very wise. If one is born again and read NIV, I wonder how he is in danger to fall into heresies? There is in You TUbe videos that tell that. Like James White said, there are bad translations, but also good ones in these newer translations. White also has said that he is no anti-KJV, although someone has said so.


----------



## au5t1n

DMcFadden said:


> Part of the difficulty attaches to the connotations attached to KJVO. A person may "only" use the KJV and not fit into the constellation of significations attached to the label KJVO.
> 
> KJVO sometimes carries a nearly cultic belief that the Holy Spirit so superintended the preservation of the text that the translational decisions of the KJV translators are more authoritative than the original Hebrew and Greek!
> 
> We have had writers on the PB defend the KJV because . . .
> 
> * The Byzantine manuscripts are more numerous (90%+) and some on the PB deem them superior to the Alexandrian texts behind the modern translations.
> 
> * The differentiation of the singular and plurals in the KJV offers greater clarity than modern English translations.
> 
> * 1/3 of the Bible is poetic and they believe that the KJV better conveys the affective aspects of the Bible than some of the more mundane prosaic renderings in English.
> 
> * The loss of a common Bible has been lamented and the preservation of the KJV is sometimes seen as an upholding of that which is good and valuable and time-tested.
> 
> One could accept an ESV or NASB as "the Bible," use them on occasion, and still preach/teach out of the KJV without holding to the odd views of some of the KJVO crowd.
> 
> In all fairness, however, most confessionally Reformed seminary grads were taught to use the Nestle/UBS Critical Text rather than the TR or Majority/Byzantine text.


 
That's a great summary. This is the way I tend to think, and I would add that In my humble opinion the KJV is more consistently literal than most others, but the NASB is a strong contender for that as well, in general.


----------



## reformedminister

David, I find your comments rather insulting, judgmental, rash, opinionated, and erroneous. The fact is that the KJV has always been and remains today an excellent and revered translation!


----------



## bookslover

Since (as I understand), in the KJV, the New Testament consists of about 85% of Tyndale's translation brought over bodily into the KJV, how can the KJV be said to be a translation (at least in the New Testament)?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

bookslover said:


> Since (as I understand), in the KJV, the New Testament consists of about 85% of Tyndale's translation brought over bodily into the KJV, how can the KJV be said to be a translation (at least in the New Testament)?



The ESV is over 90% identical to the RSV. Would you also say that the ESV is not a "translation" ?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

I have no problem with the KJV being picked as even a "standard" translation, and the excellencies of the version have already been proclaimed. However what I took away from the FPCS article is that they ONLY want their parishoners using and studying from the KJV. I NEVER said they were Ruckmanites, "God and" Riplingerites, or along the lines of the Indy-Fundy Baptist KJVOs. But, the position sounds to me more than just "KJV Preferred" like most of the smaller Reformed bodies hold to.

The question is: is someone who studies, memorizes, uses and loves the Geneva, ESV, NKJV, or other good editions of the Bible a deficient Christian for doing so? Would the FPCS, Brisbane BP, or others discipline or rebuke someone who prefers - let's take the textual argument out of here - the NKJV, Third Millennium, or Geneva?


----------



## au5t1n

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I have no problem with the KJV being picked as even a "standard" translation, and the excellencies of the version have already been proclaimed. However what I took away from the FPCS article is that they ONLY want their parishoners using and studying from the KJV. I NEVER said they were Ruckmanites, "God and" Riplingerites, or along the lines of the Indy-Fundy Baptist KJVOs. But, the position sounds to me more than just "KJV Preferred" like most of the smaller Reformed bodies hold to.
> 
> The question is: is someone who studies, memorizes, uses and loves the Geneva, ESV, NKJV, or other good editions of the Bible a deficient Christian for doing so? Would the FPCS, Brisbane BP, or others discipline or rebuke someone who prefers - let's take the textual argument out of here - the NKJV, Third Millennium, or Geneva?


 
I didn't see anything in the article to that effect, no.


----------



## TexanRose

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> ...However what I took away from the FPCS article is that they ONLY want their parishoners using and studying from the KJV.... Would the FPCS, Brisbane BP, or others discipline or rebuke someone who prefers - let's take the textual argument out of here - the NKJV, Third Millennium, or Geneva?


 
The word, as Austin pointed out, is "recommended" not "required."

"This then is the only English translation that is used in the public worship of the Church and *recommended* by the Church for family and private use." 

Just to clarify, the Free Presbyterian church in Greenville SC is not a part of the FP Church of Scotland. It might belong to the FP Church of North America.


----------



## jayce475

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I have no problem with the KJV being picked as even a "standard" translation, and the excellencies of the version have already been proclaimed. However what I took away from the FPCS article is that they ONLY want their parishoners using and studying from the KJV. I NEVER said they were Ruckmanites, "God and" Riplingerites, or along the lines of the Indy-Fundy Baptist KJVOs. But, the position sounds to me more than just "KJV Preferred" like most of the smaller Reformed bodies hold to.
> 
> The question is: is someone who studies, memorizes, uses and loves the Geneva, ESV, NKJV, or other good editions of the Bible a deficient Christian for doing so? Would the FPCS, Brisbane BP, or others discipline or rebuke someone who prefers - let's take the textual argument out of here - the NKJV, Third Millennium, or Geneva?


 
For the record, my church is a small church plant by the Singapore Bible-Presbyterians, so I am referring to our body of churches and not just my church. It would not be acceptable for pro-critical text proponents to teach against what we believe to be biblical textual preservation in any setting within the church, just as how we would not allow credo-baptism to be taught. However, if individual believers are using other versions (inclusive of NKJV, since it does differ in several places from the KJV), we gently teach them regarding the superiority of the KJV as opposed to the other bibles. Don't believe we've encountered anyone yet who has brought a Tyndale or Geneva to church before, but we regard those very highly as well. I have no clue what a Third Millennium bible is, so can't really comment. We have been greatly blessed by the good old KJV and we want all our members and visitors to receive this blessing as well.

However, on a personal level, I also regard critical text supporters to be totally different from those who claim that some words are now permanently lost and claim that there are now mistakes in the bible. The former hold on to preservation, albeit an incorrect version by our reckoning, whereas the latter have undermined the fundamentals of the faith.


----------



## KaphLamedh

Bill The Baptist said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since (as I understand), in the KJV, the New Testament consists of about 85% of Tyndale's translation brought over bodily into the KJV, how can the KJV be said to be a translation (at least in the New Testament)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ESV is over 90% identical to the RSV. Would you also say that the ESV is not a "translation" ?
Click to expand...


Didn't know that ESV is so close to RSV...well, in fact I have never read RSV.

Wasn't all English Bibles like Coverdale, Matthew, Great Bible, Bishops Bible up to KJV based on Tyndale's work? These older ones, which based on Textus Receptus so to speak.


----------



## MW

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Would the FPCS, Brisbane BP, or others discipline or rebuke someone who prefers - let's take the textual argument out of here - the NKJV, Third Millennium, or Geneva?


 
As the AFC has been mentioned on this thread I take it "others" includes the AFC. The AV is exclusively used in the pulpit. It is recommended for private use because of the conviction that it is the most faithful translation. Of course, when it comes to Bible study, "translations" are on the same footing as any tool which might be consulted, excepting that the word "Holy Bible" gives it an air of exclusive sanctity. In devotions, where the reader is in a posture of "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth," one is disposed to implicitly receive what is read, and so there is a necessity for accuracy. When individuals choose to use another version he or she is not rebuked. It is a matter which requires further understanding; the person should be discipled rather than disciplined. One is thankful for every person who has a thirst to read and understand the holy Scriptures, and it is better to be reading something rather nothing. Afterall, on the assumption that the AV is something of a standard, if a modern version agrees 90% of the time with the AV, we may deduce that a person reading a modern version is in fact reading the word of God at least 90% of the time. The problem is that the Devil is in the details, and that 10% is what the evil one seeks to use to the greatest advantage to sow seeds of doubt into the minds of men. It certainly doesn't help matters when publishers print misleading text critical notes at the foot of a page, which are fitted to give the wrong impression to the minds of untrained readers. It is better to simply give people the word of God, and leave text critical matters to those trained in the science.


----------



## bookslover

Bill The Baptist said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since (as I understand), in the KJV, the New Testament consists of about 85% of Tyndale's translation brought over bodily into the KJV, how can the KJV be said to be a translation (at least in the New Testament)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ESV is over 90% identical to the RSV. Would you also say that the ESV is not a "translation" ?
Click to expand...


If true, I'd have to say "no."


----------



## Hebrew Student

First of all, I think the value of the KJV is that it is a literary masterpiece written in the golden age of English. In this regard it is of great value.

However, I also agree with those who have said that the KJV is outdated. I can be specific here, however, and point to Proverbs 26:23:

כֶּסֶף סִיג מְצֻפֶּה עַל־חָרֶס
שְׂפָתַיׅם דֺלְקׅים וְלֶב־רָע

Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd covered with silver dross. [KJV]

The problem with this is obvious. As my professor, Dr. Lawson Younger said, no one would ever cover a pot sherd with silver dross. The KJV translators simply did not have enough information at this point.

The key to this text came with the discovery of Ugaritic. In the Ugaritic corpus, we discovered a word _spsg_ which means "glaze" or "gloss." Apparently, what happened was that the Masoretic Text fallaciously divided up the first and second words of the first line, as the Northwest Semitic term סַפְסִיג is very rare, while the Hebrew term כֶּסֶף is very common in the Hebrew Bible. The text should read:

כְּסַפְסִיגִים מְצֻפֶה עַל־חָרֶשׂ
שְׂפָתַיׅם דֺלְקׅים וְלֶב־רָע

Like the glaze covering an earthen vessel
are fervent lips with an evil heart. [ESV]

Not only that, but now the text makes perfect sense. Glaze will make a piece of earthenware look pleasing; however, it remains nothing more than dirt and clay. In the same way, fervent lips make an evil heart seem far better than what it is. However, it remains nothing more than a cheap decoration on something that is undesirable.

I think someone else also pointed out that the KJV, in some places like Job 39:9, translated "unicorn," when we know from other Semitic languages such as Akkadian and Ugaritic that the better translation is something like "wild bull."

Akkadian and Ugaritic were unknown at the time of the KJV. Akkadian wasn't deciphered until the end of the ninteenth century, and Ugaritic wasn't even discovered until the early twentieth century. They have been a great help to the lexicography of Biblical Hebrew.

Also, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has revolutionized our understanding of the text of the Hebrew Bible. I would say that, therefore, the KJV is useful, but outdated.

God Bless,
Adam


----------

