# -



## jw (Jan 2, 2014)

-


----------



## thbslawson (Jan 2, 2014)

To pose several question, does God's word _need_ the kings English to "soar on wings like eagles"? Did the original manuscripts use anything but the language of the day that people of Biblical times spoke? Would not translating the original Hebrew and Greek into some higher form of English be "adding to" the original in some way? 

I'm not anti-KJV, these are just some questions that come to mind when I hear it said that the KJV is "superior" or "better" because of the beauty of the language used.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 2, 2014)

Joshua said:


> "It is an unfortunate irony that, as a prominent atheist comes forward to defend the King James Bible, so many Christians should be abandoning it . . . . Our language today no longer soars on wings like eagles: more and more it simply limps along in our pedestrian prose—or is positively butchered in our text messages."
> 
> What the King James Bible Hath Wrought | Memoria Press



Excellent point, Josh. I am reminded of this nearly every Sunday on account of the bulletins we use. Our church buys preprinted bulletins from Lifeway where the outside has a pretty picture and a Bible verse and the other side is blank where we print our order of service and announcements. Because Lifeway owns the Holman, all of the Scripture references are from that version. Last week the verse was a portion of Romans 6:4 which read in the Holman: " just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in a new way of life." To walk in a "new way of life" suggests that we have given up smoking or joined a gym. This utterly fails to convey the meaning of the Greek word and by extension utterly fails to convey the scope of Christ's transformative power. We are born again and made into new creations. This is but one example of the failure of many modern translations to indeed soar on wings like eagles.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Jan 2, 2014)

thbslawson said:


> To pose several question, does God's word need the kings English to "soar on wings like eagles"?



Does God's word need the kings English to "soar on wings like eagles" no but sometimes just four simple words will make us fear the deceitfulness of our own hearts.



21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. 22 And they were
exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, *Lord, is it I?* KJV

21 And while they were eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.” 22 They were very
sad and began to say to him one after the other, *“Surely you don’t mean me, Lord?”* NIV


----------



## KMK (Jan 2, 2014)

> While at first the King James Bible had to settle for being second in popularity behind the Geneva Bible, it soon overtook it, becoming popular after the Restoration, according to Jacquiline Wylde, “because it was an echo of an earlier time of Kings; by then, the language of the King James was more than old-fashioned—it sounded ancient, hallowed, and mythic.”
> 
> This is as it should be. Our language today no longer soars on wings like eagles: more and more it simply limps along in our pedestrian prose—or is positively butchered in our text messages. As educators, we are charged with introducing students to something better.
> 
> Will they like it at first? Will they understand it as well on first reading? Maybe not. But we cannot be uplifted, as Mortimer Adler once said, by something that is not above us.


----------



## joejohnston3 (Jan 2, 2014)

I love the Geneva Bible and use it now as our main Bible!


----------



## Logan (Jan 2, 2014)

KMK said:


> > While at first the King James Bible had to settle for being second in popularity behind the Geneva Bible, it soon overtook it, becoming popular after the Restoration, according to Jacquiline Wylde, “because it was an echo of an earlier time of Kings; by then, the language of the King James was more than old-fashioned—it sounded ancient, hallowed, and mythic.”
> >
> > This is as it should be. Our language today no longer soars on wings like eagles: more and more it simply limps along in our pedestrian prose—or is positively butchered in our text messages. As educators, we are charged with introducing students to something better.
> >
> > Will they like it at first? Will they understand it as well on first reading? Maybe not. But we cannot be uplifted, as Mortimer Adler once said, by something that is not above us.



I was going to stay out of this but... the section you've applauded was the one I was a little concerned with, especially the last line.

I understand the desirability of elegance, or even majesty. It is the word of God and should be treated as such. I admire the KJV for that very reason in fact. But to admit people won't understand it as well but even so should have language that is "above" them seems directly contradictory even to the aims of the translators themselves:



> Lastly, wee have on the one side avoided the scrupulositie of the Puritanes, who leave the olde Ecclesticall words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptisme, and Congregation in stead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscuritie of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sence, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may bee kept from being understood. *But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee understood even of the very vulgar.*



My understanding was that the KJV was objected to at first (by some) because it was _too_ easy to understand. Not because it was too exalted. Though a different language and thus not directly comparable, wasn't the Vulgate also extolled because it sounded "ancient, hallowed, and mythic"?

My wife made the comment that this Jacquiline Wylde seems to be romanticizing a certain era. I'm not sure Wylde is correct in saying that people preferred it to the Geneva Bible because it sounded "ancient, hallowed, and mythic", it sounds like conjecture based on our ideas today. But regardless, should we be romanticizing or exalting a specific period in English history or perhaps focus on the Bible's innate majesty regardless of which era of language is used?

Regardless, I appreciated some of the things stated in the article and do think there are some good admonitions to consider elegance and majesty, I'm just also concerned that they not be above the reader, but should "bee understood even of the very vulgar".


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 2, 2014)

Poets have to bear some of the responsibility for the way people have lost touch with poetry -- Eliot himself has to bear some of that responsibility. Poetry isn't really written in our era as a way to try to say something deeply meaningful to our fellow men (as Shakespeare in his). I think it is mostly written in a private idiom, and that one of the purposes is to set apart the initiated from their fellow men. It has its own quest for 'immediacy' -- bald, blunt ugliness jarring through 'whatsoever things are lovely'. Shakespeare could write so beautifully that the beauty was one of the things that hurt you most.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 2, 2014)

Logan said:


> I understand the desirability of elegance, or even majesty. It is the word of God and should be treated as such. I admire the KJV for that very reason in fact. But to admit people won't understand it as well but even so should have language that is "above" them seems directly contradictory even to the aims of the translators themselves:


 I also love the KJV. The 1769 Blayney revision, and the one I read mostly now, the David Norton revision of the Scrivener revision, The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. That said, a great example of why modern translations are beneficial, if not necessary for me if not for others, is found in 1John 3: 4- 10. Compare the KJV with the ESV and can anyone honestly say that the KJV is as easily understood as to the message the text is communicating ?

KJV

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

ESV

4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practises lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practises righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's* seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practise righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Since we all continue to sin the KJV translation above gave me a feeling of being unsure of my salvation. I tend to read things literally. Upon reading modern translations with the distinction that ;9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. This distinction, which is not apparent to me in the KJV, makes the exhortation understandable and reassuring rather than creating a feeling of hopelessness. Just In my humble opinion ..... obviously your mileage may vary.*


----------



## thbslawson (Jan 2, 2014)

I agree, but this has less to do with the KJV than with good translation. For certain, numerous examples can be given where passages are better translated in other versions.



Gesetveemet said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> > To pose several question, does God's word need the kings English to "soar on wings like eagles"?
> ...


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 2, 2014)

Thats a good point there that The KJB Translators weren't looking to make The Text Majestic & soar on eagles wings
just for the sake of it, but that The Scripture might speak like itself , so in other words the end result due to the fact of adhering to an essentially accurate & formal Translating technique was a Majestic readable Bible that we know as The KJB.

This is due in fact because The Scriptures are The Very Words of God & not man and would read differently.


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 3, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> Thats a good point there that The KJB Translators weren't looking to make The Text Majestic & soar on eagles wings
> just for the sake of it, but that The Scripture might speak like itself , so in other words the end result due to the fact of adhering to an essentially accurate & formal Translating technique was a Majestic readable Bible that we know as The KJB.
> 
> This is due in fact because The Scriptures are The Very Words of God & not man and would read differently.



Thats a good point Robert. But my question would be if we were able to read the original manuscripts the same way we are able to read the KJV, would we look down on the original because it doesn't sound as "majestic" as the KJV? Does the original Hebrew and Greek have a "majestic" sound that made it distinct from other Hebrew and Greek works? Someone pointed out above that the original manuscripts were written in the common language of the people. Is this true? If its true than the bible should still be written in a way that reflects how the people of our day communicate with one another. What sounds "majestic" could ultimately depend on the hearer. In 100 years when the english language is further destroyed by slang, I can assure you someone will think the ESV or the NKJV is the most "majestic" translation in english. Those who think the KJV uses better English are probably right, but the chances of returning to the english of the KJV are slim to none.

By the way I watched the video on the KJB that you have under your name. I think its very interesting.


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 3, 2014)

Here's a quote from the article: "Will they like it at first? Will they understand it as well on first reading? Maybe not. But we cannot be uplifted, as Mortimer Adler once said, by something that is not above us."

Sounds like he's trying to say the more modern translations are not the word of God because there "not above us". Im guessing because the more modern versions are being "butchered" by "text messages" there below us? I think if people want to be more convincing there going to have to use better arguments.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 4, 2014)

Tyrese said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > Thats a good point there that The KJB Translators weren't looking to make The Text Majestic & soar on eagles wings
> ...


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 4, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> > One Little Nail said:
> ...


----------



## pilgrimmum (Jan 4, 2014)

Does anyone stop to consider though that the KJV is based on the received text? Surely if one reads the story behind the modern versions you will see that it is an attempt to water down Gods word and the gospel? Westcott and Hort werent even truly Christian and were into the occult. Sinaticus and Vaticanus are very dubious documents indeed to be basing our translations on and Roman Catholic to boot! Do you really trust them? I don't as one who was brought up in this false religious system. I never found the gospel in the Good News Version we had as Catholics but in the KJV when first converted.


----------



## KMK (Jan 4, 2014)

pilgrimmum said:


> Does anyone stop to consider though that the KJV is based on the received text? Surely if one reads the story behind the modern versions you will see that it is an attempt to water down Gods word and the gospel? Westcott and Hort werent even truly Christian and were into the occult. Sinaticus and Vaticanus are very dubious documents indeed to be basing our translations on and Roman Catholic to boot! Do you really trust them? I don't as one who was brought up in this false religious system. I never found the gospel in the Good News Version we had as Catholics but in the KJV when first converted.



Welcome to PB! Please fix your signature according to board rules. You can find out how by clicking on 'Signature Requirements' under my own signature.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 4, 2014)

I find that as long as an accurate translation of God's word communicates that which God desires to impart to His children in a most accurate manner then it is a matter of spiritual freedom to embrace that which helps one to understand God's meaning of His word. I do believe that at times we become so familiar with our readings that time after time we miss small bits of gold possibly from a quick read over chapters. If however, we interchange the reading of different versions of the Bible which hold true to the Word of God it might possibly slow down our readings to help us take pause and ponder what it is we have read thus leading to deeper a contemplation. In the end, I don't believe flowery words or non-flowery words leads a believer into a further learning of God which compasses all the blessings from which flows from that learning. Instead, I believe (as i'm sure all here do also) it is the workings of the Holy Spirit through the word which edifies, teaches, etc which is required for and of His people.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 5, 2014)

Tyrese said:


> Hi Robert, Thanks for responding.
> 
> One last question for you. Was the Hebrew and Greek used in the original manuscripts of the bible different from anything else that was written during that time?




though not being familiar with the original languages I would say yes, as it was sacred literature as opposed to common
earthly writings by sinful fallen men who are under the dominion of satan, the difference of gold to dross, this refers more
to the subject content than to the writing style,structure,grammar,syntax,language technicality,linguistics or philology etc.
as i've said parts were written by shepherds & fishermen! God could have employed the most polished form of language
as he created the tongue! though he was addressing chiefly an agrarian people so wrote mostly to suit his intended 
audience though Peter says of Paul's Hebrew Epistle that he wrote things hard to be understood also, theres a mixture.




Tyrese said:


> I don't mean to overuse the term "majestic" as you have already said that was not the only intent, but was the original manuscripts more "majestic" compared to other works? If it was than I have changes to make. But if not than I guess I will stick with the NKJV.



Look the N.K.J.V. is a reasonable translation you can continue to use it, I personally can't endorse it,though I will reference it from time to time, you need to have your own conviction in this matter, though I think you should read it alongside The K.J.B. as it is a more accurate Translation of the original languages, if I can make one suggestion that would be to read through a recent PB Tread on this matter & study the Links that have been referred to there. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-vs-NKJV-81000/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/NKJV-faithful-update-KJV-66482/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/NKJV-72819/

Romans 14:5 Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 5, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> though not being familiar with the original languages





One Little Nail said:


> I think you should read it alongside The K.J.B. as it is a more accurate Translation of the original languages



Hmmmm.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 7, 2014)

Phil D. said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > though not being familiar with the original languages
> ...



Hmmmm.  yes, is there a problem? 
there have been many many hundreds if not thousands of Ministers,Preachers,Scholars, who have given Testimony to this
Fact without a necessity on my part to know the Original Languages, I've cross checked Interlinear KJB's & found that
in every case without one single exception that The KJB has used a perfectly legitimate English word to Translate a Greek/Hebrew equivalent, do I need to tell of the Scholarship of the Translators, ah very well I'll let Gordon Campbell,
MA, DPhil, DLitt, Dr hc, FSA, FRHistS, FRGS, FRAS, is Professor of Renaissance Studies at University of Leicester, & 
author of BIBLE The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011, Oxford Uni. Press, 354 pp.

"The learning embodied in the men of these six companies is daunting. It is sometimes assumed that people in the twenty-first century know more than the benighted people of the seventeenth century, but in many ways the opposite is true. The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than that of the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the KJV translators. We may live in a world with more knowledge, but it is populated by people with less knowledge." 
Review of Gordon Campbell's 'Bible,' about the King James Version

Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 by Gordon Campbell

thats sufficient for me.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 9, 2014)

Well put Robert. But surely the modern translators know better than others from the past and know how unimportant whole sentences are to becoming a Christian and learning to grow properly and effectually in all the Christian doctrines. Why say "that was so funny I was rolling on the floor in laughter" when we can say rofl, so why say the whole Lords prayer when you can still get the message across and leave some out. Hey, the blood of Jesus is mentioned in so many places what does it matter if we leave a couple of references to it out. After all they are only Gods Words. Who knows, maybe in 100 years time the whole Bible will be abbreviated like text talk to "please" the people of the time? After all that's the language they talk in now, so lets change it to suit.


----------



## thbslawson (Jan 9, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> Well put Robert. But surely the modern translators know better than others from the past and know how unimportant whole sentences are to becoming a Christian and learning to grow properly and effectually in all the Christian doctrines. Why say "that was so funny I was rolling on the floor in laughter" when we can say rofl, so why say the whole Lords prayer when you can still get the message across and leave some out. Hey, the blood of Jesus is mentioned in so many places what does it matter if we leave a couple of references to it out. After all they are only Gods Words. Who knows, maybe in 100 years time the whole Bible will be abbreviated like text talk to "please" the people of the time? After all that's the language they talk in now, so lets change it to suit.



I don't think anyone here is advocating a text-message translation. To date, all faithful translations have been put into a grammatically correct form of English to clearly communicate the *meaning* of the text. No one is advocating leaving things out or removing key words that are present in the originals.

The question that the OP brought up was whether or not God's Word needs to be translated in such a way that it's language 'soars on wings like eagles," and I think the answer to that is no. The originals should be accurately translated into standardized English in such a way as to best retain the literal meaning of the text in a readable form. Do this and it will soar by itself. It needs no help from us. 

The KJV is a faithful translation, and I will agree that the King James English is beautiful, but people do not talk that way any longer. We don't say "whithersoever thou goest" or "hitherto". To insist in some way that believers adapt to that kind of language in order to read God's Word seems almost akin to those who argued against the Bible's original translation into English.

When I read...

Bless the Lord, O my soul,
and all that is within me,
bless his holy name!
2 Bless the Lord, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits,
3 who forgives all your iniquity,
who heals all your diseases,
4 who redeems your life from the pit,
who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,
5 who satisfies you with good
so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's.

...It soars!


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 11, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> Well put Robert. But surely the modern translators know better than others from the past and know how unimportant whole sentences are to becoming a Christian and learning to grow properly and effectually in all the Christian doctrines. Why say "that was so funny I was rolling on the floor in laughter" when we can say rofl, so why say the whole Lords prayer when you can still get the message across and leave some out. Hey, the blood of Jesus is mentioned in so many places what does it matter if we leave a couple of references to it out. After all they are only Gods Words. Who knows, maybe in 100 years time the whole Bible will be abbreviated like text talk to "please" the people of the time? After all that's the language they talk in now, so lets change it to suit.



Thanks Brett, that sounds like a very good idea,what sort of name do you have in mind for a translation like that, because I was thinking of some possible names myself just of the top of my head like the Origen Version ,remember him he was the "genius" down in Alexandria that is considered the Father of modern Unbelieving Textual criticism, if I remember rightly I believe he castrated himself with a Knife, don't know if that was before or after he took to the Scriptures with it. 

or the Fool & Knave Bible Version after a "particular variant" reading that was inscribed on the side of Codex Vaticanus, right at Hebrews 1:3 Text, think it read something like Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it.

and also why just stop there when we can still take all the remaining verses out that might suggest that Jesus was God or Divine or had Deity & all those long winded sentences like Lord Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ we can just abbreviate to Jesus.


----------



## Logan (Jan 11, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> Thanks Brett, that sounds like a very good idea,what sort of name do you have in mind for a translation like that, because I was thinking of some possible names myself just of the top of my head like the Origen Version ,remember him he was the "genius" down in Alexandria that is considered the Father of modern Unbelieving Textual criticism, if I remember rightly I believe he castrated himself with a Knife, don't know if that was before or after he took to the Scriptures with it.
> 
> or the Fool & Knave Bible Version after a "particular variant" reading that was inscribed on the side of Codex Vaticanus, right at Hebrews 1:3 Text, think it read something like Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it.
> 
> and also why just stop there when we can still take all the remaining verses out that might suggest that Jesus was God or Divine or had Deity & all those long winded sentences like Lord Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus or Jesus Christ we can just abbreviate to Jesus.



Robert, I ask you to seriously ponder whether you have committed some ninth commandment violations here. I am bothered by this abusive post.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jan 11, 2014)

Save cult versions of the Bible, I don't know of any modern translations that remove Christ's deity. Matter of fact, some are as clear or moreso than the KJV.


----------



## Mr. W (Jan 11, 2014)

_"But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."_ -Westminster Confession, Chapter 1:8

1. Regardless of how majestic it sounds to some, 16th-17th century English is not the "vulgar language" of Canada, and this is why we don't use the KJB in our pews.

2. To my 21st century ear, the KJB flattens the variation of style found throughout the Scriptures. For example, Mark uses much plainer style of speech than does Luke. I can see and appreciate these variations in style in a translation such as ESV. When I read KJB, I don't pick up on these differences as easily.

3. This really isn't an argument as it is a peeve... I simply hate the name "King James Bible." It is actually the Bible of a much greater King!


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 11, 2014)

If one has an open mind, and a desire to investigate the differences in a 'modern' translation in comparison with the KJV of 1769, I would encourage them to do as I have, and obtain a copy of Cambridge's Interlinear KVJ/RV. The RV of 1881/85 is largely based, I've read, on the text of Westcott & Hort. I have been reading this interlinear daily and for a better idea of the nature of many of the changes seeing them parallel is very instructive.

If anything this has given me more of an understanding of why the Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, speaking to his congregation on the RV, referring to Westcott & Hort, could say, " we are entitled to go further and say, the text, so called, of Westcott & Hort we can undoubtedly take with confidence as being the original manuscripts and documents." (Studies In 1 John Life In God volume 5 page 71)

Of course MLJ was only a man like as we all are, but a man who preached the Gospel of Christ with power for over 50 years. Knew the original languages, and the fact that he was probably the greatest Bible exegete of the twentieth century is undisputed. Say that to say, as much as I respect the members of this board who adhere to a particular manuscript, when such men as MLJ, among a great many others, find some of the modern translations trustworthy, I find myself deferring to their scholarship. I'll continue to read my KJV with reverence, but I'll read my ESV with the same reverence.


----------



## KMK (Jan 11, 2014)

Please interact with article linked in the OP. This thread is in danger of becoming too broad to manage.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 11, 2014)

Logan said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Brett, that sounds like a very good idea,what sort of name do you have in mind for a translation like that, because I was thinking of some possible names myself just of the top of my head like the Origen Version ,remember him he was the "genius" down in Alexandria that is considered the Father of modern Unbelieving Textual criticism, if I remember rightly I believe he castrated himself with a Knife, don't know if that was before or after he took to the Scriptures with it.
> ...



Are you serious man? It is generally believed that Origen did what he did to himself though it may have become a popular
a popular folk tale , and the fool & knave quote is there right in the margin,you Alexandrians must realise that it is not a
violation of the 9th to use hyperbole & humour to emphasise but they are of figures of speech, just like when Paul said I
wish you would cut yourself off,now your going to say is that a general remark,or is that aimed at me or is it about origen?


----------



## KMK (Jan 11, 2014)

This thread is done.


----------

