KJV Revision - Calling all Received Text Onlyists!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tim,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The Bible is not the ordained ministry. This gentleman needs to sit under a faithful ministry which will teach him from the Bible so that he learns from the Bible in the way it was intended to be used.
 
In a previous post you said you were open to one word being translated different ways. When the word contains the nuance of the rabbi it is translated as master. When it relates simply to one who gives instruction it is translated teacher.

I understand what you're saying. But the KJV doesn't use the word teacher at all...
 
Patrick, I often benefit from your posts but it seems quite uncharitable to pretend I include the NWT as a translation of Scripture. But yes, the majesty is intrinsic to Scripture and the translation will have a majesty in so far as it represents Scripture. The point being that it is not the language used in translation, but Scripture's intrinsic nature (regardless of translation) that is the majesty the WCF references.
Logan,

Forgive me for using your post to make a point I anticipated to be in evidence in your rejoinder. That is, the term "Scripture" means something more than mere translation of words. That we do not call just any whims of men, "Scripture" is evident in the WCF portion that I cited above.
 
I’m a Received Text onlyist who sees a great need for a faithful but readable Bible version which is based on the RT.

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

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

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

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

Well, it was actually just a bit of background to show where I'm approaching it from but, no, I can't say I'm massively surprised!! :)
 
Or just do what Tyndale did, go for the lowest common denominator. What would the plough-boy understand? Hey, if it's good enough for Tyndale..

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Good enough for Tyndale"!

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Good enough for Tyndale"!

Edit: The Tyndale translation is available online here.

Firstly, if you read my posts then you'd know what I'm not attacking the AV at all. I think it's an incredible translation and has been divinely blessed throughout it's history.
I'm also completely aware of the Tyndale/1611 crossover. I'm not saying Tyndale was easy reading and the KJV isn't. I'm saying that Tyndale put the Word of God in the ploughboy's language. If he had translated it today then it would have sounded very different in the same way that the 1611 translators' aim of making the Bible to be understandable by the most vulgar would mean that if they were translating today then they would have used modern language. Language changed sometimes significantly. The 1611 quote about being understood by the most vulgar is a prime example. Vulgar now means rude, crass and objectionable. In 1611 vulgar was used to describe the common man on the street. The evolution of language isn't something to be scared of.
 
I find it interesting how those who attack the Authorised Version say this, even with the knowledge that the AV translators drew considerably from Tyndale's translation. There is no divide whatsoever between Tyndale and the Authorised Version. In fact, it is the polar opposite: perhaps more than half, a majority, of the Authorised Version is Tyndale's translation!

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

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

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

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

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

"Good enough for Tyndale"!

Edit: The Tyndale translation is available online here.
What is interesting is that many would hold that the Geneva Bible was actually a better translation of that time then the KJV itself...
 
I found a more full reference to the allusion I made earlier:

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

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

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

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

The answer to your question is in your historical statement. Where is the reforming Parliament? Where is the like of John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Anthony Tuckney, and Joseph Caryl? Reformed Presbyterians hold to the attainments of the first and second reformation together with the establishment principle. Without "unifying" and "reforming" conditions there is no reason to expect a "unified" and "reformed" attainment.
 
My first thought is that it didn't stop the Geneva Bible. That said, I am genuinely curious as to whether you think this holds for all English speaking nations or just those under the crown?
 
My first thought is that it didn't stop the Geneva Bible. That said, I am genuinely curious as to whether you think this holds for all English speaking nations or just those under the crown?

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

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

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

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

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