KJV Bible: How to overcome the language barrier?

Status
Not open for further replies.
New Translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) also have words we don't normaly used:

What is dissipation (Titus 1:6) = The AV uses "riot"

perpetrate (Ruth 4:5) = AV has "raise up"

Syrtis (Acts 27:17) = AV uses "quicksands"

Satraps (Dan.6:2) = AV uses "princes"

Ascent of Heres (Judges 8:13) = AV uses "the sun was up"

*Pergamum did you see the ascent of the heres? :)


Offal (Lev. 4:11) = AV has "Dung"
 
New Translations (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV) also have words we don't normaly used:

Yes, the fact is that the Bible speaks of many life-contexts which are not part and parcel of everyday life, especially for modern man, and therefore require a vocabulary which is not a part of everyday speech.
 
Zechariah 13:6 (KJV)

And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.


New American Standard Bible (NASB)

"And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will say, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends


English Standard Version (ESV)

And if one asks him, 'What are these wounds on your back?' he will say, 'The wounds I received in the house of my friends.'

Which one is it: hands (KJV), arms (NASB), back (ESV)???
 
To criticise the AV because it contains archaisms, as if archaisms make it outdated, is to "bewray" a lack of linguistic sophistication.

The KJV doesn't contain archaisms, it is an archaism. The whole thing is archaic. Since I speak English, Dutch and fair German and an avid history reader I can read Beowulf in the original if I have a dictionary next to me, so I can look up every third word. I'm educated and consider myself linguistically sophisticated, grew up in the church, but even I can't read the KJV with comfort (and not be telling a lie).

You know, the criticisms of the KJV wouldn't have to be trotted out every few weeks if it weren't for the conspiracy theories out there that lead certain (but not all) KJV onlies to criticise other translations as not being some how as inspired as the KJV.

Such conspiracy theories as that there is a "Biblical English" or the Septuagint is a myth or dragons and unicorns existed, or average English speakers can understand the KJV, or Aramaic was a form of Hebrew or the like.

It's the most natural thing in the world for people to get defensive if they are attacked. But if someone is truly convinced that the KJV is some how more inspired than other versions, that person has the obligation to attack the other versions out there. And while that happens, people get defensive, sarcastic, dismissive and even contemptuous, especially as those on the attack aren't supported by any Reformed denominations and get so much of their material from independent fundamentalist Baptist work which isn't known as particularly scholarly.

I've often wondered why KJV onlies in confessional Reformed churches don't start church legal action against using any other version from the pulpit besides the KJV. I'd like to see such a case tried. I've asked here before why those advocating a KJV only stance won't send a letter to their Session, but to my knowledge no one here's done that yet.
 
I've often wondered why KJV onlies in confessional Reformed churches don't start church legal action against using any other version from the pulpit besides the KJV. I'd like to see such a case tried.

Aren't we permitted to have a calm discussion as to the virtues of translations without splitting the church?
 
There are KJV only folks and New Modern Translation only folks; i.e. ESV only, NASB only, NIV only.

They can read their ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc. but others cannot read their KJV/AV.
 
Here's a possible solution, recommended to me by a fellow ARP pastor (Steve Woods), who is a KJV man. It's called the Defined King James Bible, and it might be what your looking for.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water! Keep the excellent rhythm, cadence, and reliability of the Faithful Old King James Bible. Simply add to it footnoted definitions of uncommon words and what do you get? You get the Defined King James Bible. This Bible uses footnotes to define virtually all of the archaic, obsolete, difficult, or uncommon words in the King James Bible
Defined King James Bibles

That has got to be one of the most awesome things I have seen for a long time. Looking at the sample sheets that is exactly what I was looking for.

Do you have any more information on it?

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 04:31:59 EST-----

For those of you who started reading the King James Bible later in life, how did you overcome the language barrier? And are you confident that you have actually overcome the language barrier?

For those who have grown up on the KJV, how did you teach others to use the KJV in such a way so that they actually understand what they are reading to the same level that someone would understand a modern translation?

Not intentionally, but unintentionally I over came the "barrier" by studying Old English and Middle English in college. So if you're looking to go that route, a goode version of The Canterbury Tales will help you out, preferably, one with the Middle English on one page, and the translation on the other. After that, KJV is a piece of cake. However, with that in mind, I don't ever recommend the KJV because words do not mean the same thing today as they did when the KJV was translated. If you want an accurate definition of a word, Webster is going to help, but only in part. The Oxford English Dictionary is going to give you the best historically accurate definition of a difficult word to the time period. That said, it is not necessarily hard words that will trip you up, it is usually the "common" words that change over long periods of time (like the word "nice"). Because some words could have a historical nuance that we just simply don't know, I don't generally recommend the KJV, and thus would find the only recommendation to learning true KJV to be a handy, 22 volumed OED with you - or an online subscription! If you're interested in spending effort, why not just go straight to the original?!
:2cents:

I know Greek and Hebrew. I can read the Bible in the original languages. But for general reading I like to read a good English version. I like the sound of the KJV, but to be honest, I've had a hard time with the English. I mean, I just don't trust myself that I am understanding what is being said correctly. And then I will read a modern translation and I will get an aha! moment (or look at the original languages).

That defined KJV bible looks pretty cool. I'm definitely going to look into that.
 
Mark: With that glowing endorsement, I'm taking a look at one right now too on Amazon (in another window)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Communication is not about relevancy, it is about accuracy.

Nonsense. Communication in the form of instruction challenges the mind to reach higher and broader and deeper and longer.

Come on man, that is a distraction. I'm not saying that communication is not about challenging the mind. If you 'know' me at all from this forum you know that is not the case. I come from a strong academic background. You must have completely missed what I was saying. Let me try again: Whatever you are trying to communicate must be understood. I doubt the following would really help, 'Male offspring of my loins who bears the nominative of my maternal grandfather, retract your digital sinestrol appendage before its contact with the radiant surface to your anterior side results in the transfer of intensified caloric energy to your dermal tissues.'

To understand that one's mind must be stretched. But in the moment, it is useless.
 
Lawrence,

You said, "Communication is not about relevancy, it is about accuracy." I have a different take on your statement.

The reason I prefer the King James Bible is because of its accuracy, that is, the accuracy of the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie it. I know this is disputed, but it is a position capable of being defended. When Muslims or other detractors of the Christian faith attack the Bible – our faith's very foundation – I cannot defend versions derived from other Greek and Hebrew textforms.

I willingly sacrifice some clarity and ease of comprehension for accuracy and intactness. Some KJV defenders will not like when I say I would welcome a careful revision so as to make the text without archaisms and syntactically amenable to 21st century readers. That being said, I would want to keep the usage of Thou, Thee, Thine, ye, and such as that is not so much archaic as a means of precision, and also indicative of a mode of speaking as befits the creature addressing the Infinite and Almighty God, as opposed to the "buddy conversation" some modern versions tend toward.

It would have to be as much a work of art and learning as the original AV in its capturing the cadences and majesty of speech in the Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

An interesting examination of the concept of "Biblical English" may be seen in the section, "THE NIV OR THE AV ENGLISH", in Jack Moorman's book, MODERN BIBLES: the Dark Secret.

I realize this topic may bring the worst out of people, so prejudiced, bigoted and bitter some have become due to bad experiences. It has been said, "...if someone is truly convinced that the KJV is some how more inspired than other versions, that person has the obligation to attack the other versions out there." Not so. I do not think of myself as "attacking" other versions when I point out flaws in them which give our non-christian adversaries ground to deny the Bible's reliability, and also give our Christian brothers and sisters doubt and confusion as to whether there even is a sure and reliable Word of God today — something many text-critics today deny!

This is what modern text critics say about the NT text:

“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, The Ferrar Group, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 1953, p. 9).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).​

What the AV defenders hold forth is a Bible the Lord preserved for His people. We do not believe the pessimism of the critics with their naturalistic methodologies. The Bible is a supernatural Book, as is our Faith in its entirety.

Thus to critically scrutinize another's view is not to attack it, if it be done respectfully and in the gracious Spirit of Christ. In friendly and scholarly discussions it indeed may be natural (as in the ungodly and unregenerate) to become "sarcastic, dismissive and even contemptuous", but we are to conduct ourselves as spiritual and not as natural men and women. No one can make us manifest these negative traits; if they are in us they will out; we ourselves are responsible for our sinful attitudes. As James said, "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish." (James 3:15)

And if we claim any group of believers are en mass unscholarly, it behooves us to demonstrate it with counter-scholarship, not mere allegations. I refer to the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists. I suppose among some Reformed they make a nice scapegoat, much like Christians might be in an assembly of homosexual activists! But their scholarship regarding the Biblical texts is on a par with the best (unless of course you disagree with them! then just trash them rather than interact with their research).

The Protestant Reformed Church, for one, is a denomination that uses the King James Bible.

To sum: I find that, despite my holding to the King James and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the best, there are men (and women) who use the modern versions based on the Critical and the Eclectic texts who are godlier souls than I am, and who are more learned. My spiritual life has been profoundly deepened and enriched by these folks, and I rejoice to be in intimate fellowship with them and partake of the Spirit of our King in them. It thus behooves me to present my views with gentleness and respect, and the spirit of love which is the mark of citizenship in the everlasting Kingdom.
 
Steve,
I appreciate your post, and your attitude. I, too, appreciate the accuracy of the AV and I honour its history and usage. I realise as well that the degradation of pronouns and the conjugation of verbs in English has muddied communication in our language at times. Having said all that, I do believe that for some, perhaps many, the archaic language of the AV is a needles hurdle to their spiritual growth and education.

I know that I will not convince anyone with my posts, so . . . over and out.
 
The reason I prefer the King James Bible is because of its accuracy, that is, the accuracy of the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie it. I know this is disputed, but it is a position capable of being defended. When Muslims or other detractors of the Christian faith attack the Bible – our faith's very foundation – I cannot defend versions derived from other Greek and Hebrew textforms.

I willingly sacrifice some clarity and ease of comprehension for accuracy and intactness. Some KJV defenders will not like when I say I would welcome a careful revision so as to make the text without archaisms and syntactically amenable to 21st century readers. That being said, I would want to keep the usage of Thou, Thee, Thine, ye, and such as that is not so much archaic as a means of precision, and also indicative of a mode of speaking as befits the creature addressing the Infinite and Almighty God, as opposed to the "buddy conversation" some modern versions tend toward.

Is it possible to keep the accuracy while making a text 'syntactically amenable to 21st century readers'? The English of the 21st centurt is simply not as precise as Biblical English. Perhaps the text could be explained as it went along like the Amplified Bible?
 
For those of you who started reading the King James Bible later in life, how did you overcome the language barrier? And are you confident that you have actually overcome the language barrier?

For those who have grown up on the KJV, how did you teach others to use the KJV in such a way so that they actually understand what they are reading to the same level that someone would understand a modern translation?

Most of the difficulty for the later reader I've found is due to a lack of knowledge of English Grammar. Here's how I taught it to an adult class which had difficulty with it.

1st Person -- 2nd Person


I go -- We go
Thou goest -- You go
He/She/It goeth -- They go


Removing the thou/you distinction leads to confusion in the English translation. See Luke 22:31, 32.

For a basic understanding of the parts of speech and verb forms I've found the following grammars to be the best:

A Short Introduction to English ... - Google Book Search

The Principles of Grammar: Being a ... - Google Book Search

For the words that are difficult to understand, I've found the following process to be useful.

1) Read the surrounding verses.
2) If that fails, then read the surrounding paragraphs or the entire chapter.
3) If that fails, then read the chapter before and after.
4) If that fails, then begin reading every occurrence in the OT & NT. What I generally do is read how it is used in the Pentateuch and the Gospels and if I haven't figured it out by then I move on to the other books. You don't have to look at every occurrence, but the more you do look at the better the definition.

I've yet to find a word that this doesn't work on. You can check yourself against the OED or Online Etymology Dictionary or older commentaries that use the word in that context.
 
Last edited:
Most of the difficulty for the later reader I've found is due to a lack of knowledge of English Grammar.
Though English is not my native language, I did not have problems with the Early English Grammar (of course, it took some time to study it, but something was easy to figure out just by intuition). The most difficult thing for me is its vocabulary, namely the words that either fell into disuse or (what is worse) changed their meaning.
 
Most of the difficulty for the later reader I've found is due to a lack of knowledge of English Grammar.
Though English is not my native language, I did not have problems with the Early English Grammar (of course, it took some time to study it, but something was easy to figure out just by intuition). The most difficult thing for me is its vocabulary, namely the words that either fell into disuse or (what is worse) changed their meaning.

Is your first language a Latin derivative or one that uses a distinction between 2nd pers. sing & plur? That might be why it was easier for you. We don't learn no stinkin' latin in America!
 
Is your first language a Latin derivative or one that uses a distinction between 2nd pers. sing & plur? That might be why it was easier for you. We don't learn no stinkin' latin in America!
Well, my language does have a distinction between 2nd pers. sing & plur (otherwise it has nothing in common with English or any Germanic languages), but it is not a Latin derivative either. It has an Indo-European synthetic-inflexional structure.
 
Last edited:
There are people whose experience is that the AV gives them no real trouble. There are people whose experience is that it's maddeningly frustrating to understand. These divides seem to cut across lines of gender, education, intelligence, acquaintance with other languages, and I trust, convictions (in other words, I hope that it is not your (generally taken) views on issues of text and translation that lead you to the affirmation of what is easy to understand, nor that you would have come to a position on those important matters based on what was intellectually convenient for you).

Those who say it is difficult to understand can take a low road and say that those whose experience is other are simply reading so inattentively they don't realize how many things are incomprehensible. Those who say it is easy to understand can also take a low road and say those who have a hard time with it are simply thick.

But it would probably be better if we could think of way to overcome that difficulty, if our convictions lead us to think it necessary, or of ways in which we could make that difficulty, and the needlessness of overcoming it, intelligible to those who don't share it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top