Poor English Style in Bible Translations

[Pantocrator]

I would like to start a thread about poor English style in Bible translations. I do not want this discussion to veer into textual critical issues.

Has anybody ever thought of revising the King James Version, not to change it into contemporary English, but just to improve the style and remove awkward syntax?

What examples of poor English style can you find in Bible translations? How would you change them?

Note once again that I do not want this thread to turn into a debate about textual criticism. I solely want to focus on translating the Word of God in a manner befitting of its glory.

 

[Edward]

If you want a modern translation, get a modern translation. But if you want to edit early modern English, you have a ways to go.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Yes, clearly the KJV translators were dolts who could barely speak English. Thank goodness you have begun the massive task of correcting them.

 

[Pantocrator]

Actually the Geneva Bible was written in style superior to that of the King James Version. When the King James Version first came out critics accused the translation of being cumbersome and of having stilted syntax. Sorry if I offended somebody by suggesting that the King James Version could use a few stylistic improvements

 

[bookslover]

Poor English style? I'm lookin' at you, New Amercan Standard Bible...

 

[bookslover]

Has anybody ever thought of revising the King James Version, not to change it into contemporary English, but just to improve the style and remove awkward syntax?

Been done. It's called the New King James Bible...

 

[KMK]

Actually the Geneva Bible was written in style superior to that of the King James Version. When the King James Version first came out critics accused the translation of being cumbersome and of having stilted syntax. Sorry if I offended somebody by suggesting that the King James Version could use a few stylistic improvements

You need to fix your signature. Click on "Signature Requirements" under my own signature to find out how.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I solely want to focus on translating the Word of God in a manner befitting of its glory.

Have you lurked a wee bit here at PB to get a sense of the lay of the land, as it were? As you can already see, your post is going to invite more, er, attention than you may have anticipated.

Are you implying that God's Word has not been translated in a manner befitting its glory? If so, in what sense do you claim this? Can you offer some examples along these lines?

 

[Jake]

There have been several "light" changes to the KJV: Webster's 1833 Revision which updates grammar and spelling to reflect American usage (it errs on being too conservative with revisions), the American KJV, which is mainly spelling, the 21st Century KJV which is mainly spelling and minor grammar, and UKJV which is more syntax related.

I appreciate your concerns. For example, I don't know of many modern versions that consistently try to distinguish between singular/plural you (the only I know if the MYLT which puts an S or P superscript after each you). Generally, such would be lost in using modern English. And there are some awkward phrasings to the modern English speaker. I would look through some of the links I provided, as well as a host of other slight modifications, and see if you can find something.

 

[Edward]

And there are some awkward phrasings to the modern English speaker

And you don't think the 'thee's and 'thou's that you retained are awkward to the modern English speaker? I notice that you've deleted your example of an 'improvement', which I found, at best, inconsistent in its changes. One thing there is not a shortage of is Bible translations in English.

Quick grab from Wikipedia of the KJ family:

Children's King James Version Jay P. Green 1960
King James II Version of the Bible Jay P. Green 1971
King James Version—Twentieth Century Edition Jay P. Green
New King James Version 1982
21st Century King James Version 1994
Third Millennium Bible 1998
Modern King James Version 1999
American King James Version 1999
King James 2000 Version 2000
Updated King James Version 2000
King James Version Easy Reading 2001
Holy Scriptures in English 2001
Comfort-able King James Version 2003
New Cambridge Paragraph Bible 2005
AV7 (New Authorized Version) 2006
Authorized Version Update 2006
King James Version—Corrected Edition
Divine Name King James Bible 2011
Modern English Version 2014

There are a number of folks here who are functionally KJO (I'm not one of them - there have been a fair number of threads on that subject) who would probably give you more push back than would I.

 

[Jake]

And there are some awkward phrasings to the modern English speaker

And you don't think the 'thee's and 'thou's that you retained are awkward to the modern English speaker? I notice that you've deleted your example of an 'improvement', which I found, at best, inconsistent in its changes. One thing there is not a shortage of is Bible translations in English.

[...]

There are a number of folks here who are functionally KJO (I'm not one of them - there have been a fair number of threads on that subject) who would probably give you more push back than would I.

I was trying to distinguish between consistent differences because of the older language and occasional differences. Maybe this doesn't really stand up, but for example, thee/thou add a level of clarity after a small amount of learning that cannot be easily maintained in today's English. While if that were important it would be theoretically possible to do, it seems rarely done. Edit: Another example of a difference that is consistent and easy to quickly learn is pluralizing verbs with -th instead of -s.

Also, I don't recall deleting anything, and it doesn't mark editing the text. Could you let me know what you mean there? I could be forgetting something I did early this morning!

For what it's worth, I might could be called "functionally KJO." We use it in our family worship and I use it for most of my reading, with reference occasionally to other versions. However, I still acknowledge some drawbacks to it, but I think it's based on the best manuscripts and it's overall a well done translation.

 

[Logan]

Yes, clearly the KJV translators were dolts who could barely speak English. Thank goodness you have begun the massive task of correcting them.

Owen was no dolt either, but his English is quite "Latinized", perhaps this is what the OP is referring to. Is the sarcasm really necessary?

 

[KeithW]

I notice that you've deleted your example of an 'improvement', which I found, at best, inconsistent in its changes.

Also, I don't recall deleting anything, and it doesn't mark editing the text. Could you let me know what you mean there? I could be forgetting something I did early this morning!

The original post had an example from 1 Corinthians. The original post now has an automatically generated note saying, "Last edited by Pantocrator; Yesterday at 09:34 PM" and the example is gone.

 

[TylerRay]

I might could

Jake, I'm proud of you! You used a Southernism! That may be the first one I've ever witnessed you using.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Keith (and perhaps Edward, as well),
I think you are confusing the OP (Pantocrator) with Jake...

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Yes, clearly the KJV translators were dolts who could barely speak English. Thank goodness you have begun the massive task of correcting them.

Owen was no dolt either, but his English is quite "Latinized", perhaps this is what the OP is referring to. Is the sarcasm really necessary?

My sarcasm was addressed toward his original, unedited post which provided an example of a text that he had personally "improved." My objection was not to the suggestion that the KJV language could at times be awkward to the modern reader, but rather to the presumption that the KJV translators were incompetent and that somehow he was more qualified than they.

 

[JimmyH]

I don't think it is a question of 'unqualified'. To my eye it is a question of the differences in English usage then versus now. I'm 66 years old and I still have to go to modern versions to completely understand some of Paul's syntax, some phrasing in the OT. Some books I don't have any trouble with, others, notably Paul, wring me out.

I'm not talking about archaisms, but construction of sentences, syntax. No need to rewrite it. The translators of the NASB, and the 1984 NIV have done a first class job in their English translations. Anticipating the possible 'flames' that my mention of the NIV will stimulate, I cite D.A. Carson in 'The King James Only Controversy, A Plea For Realism', where he says that the NIV is the 'best English translation.'

John MacArthur in the recent 'How To Study The Bible' series. He says towards the end of this lecture, that he reads the KJV, and checks his reading with the NASB and the NIV. "They are the best English translations." I do the same as MacArthur, I read the AV, than the NIV/NASB. So regardless of what others think, I'm in good company.

How to Study the Bible

 

[KeithW]

Keith (and perhaps Edward, as well),
I think you are confusing the OP (Pantocrator) with Jake...

I saw the original post before it was edited. So no, I am not confused.

 

[Edward]

Keith (and perhaps Edward, as well),
I think you are confusing the OP (Pantocrator) with Jake...

I can't speak for Keith, but you are correct as to me - I conflated the two in my rush to get a post up before scrambling to get to the train station. My comments should have been directed to the original poster, not Jake. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I saw the original post before it was edited. So no, I am not confused.

But the person you were responding to (Jake) didn't write the original post. That's all I was trying to point out...