Understanding the KJV

[davidbrainerd]

I think we are thinking too narrowly. I suggest to us that we consider the rest of the world before investing one more cent in another English translation
........
So there are still 1900+ languages in the world today that don't have any Bible translation available. And of the 7 billion people in the world there are 875 million who are illiterate. This means that when Wycliffe and associate organisations develop a language in print and translate the Bible, they have to teach the people to read and write. This is a massive task.

Oz

Considering that we don't speak any of those languages and therefore can't translate into them, what's your point again? Maybe that's something for Wycliffe to focus on, but it has nothing to do we us on this forum discussing English translations. And we aren't only discussing English translations anyway, since this discussion also gets into what Greek text should be used in a translation generally.

 

[OzSpen]

Considering that we don't speak any of those languages and therefore can't translate into them, what's your point again? Maybe that's something for Wycliffe to focus on, but it has nothing to do we us on this forum discussing English translations. And we aren't only discussing English translations anyway, since this discussion also gets into what Greek text should be used in a translation generally.

My point is that we spend so much energy on a forum like this, doing battle over whether it should be KJV or NIV, ESV, etc, when that is only dealing with about 5% of the world's population that speaks English as its first language.

We are discussing translations, but how about translations for 1900+ language groups that don't even have a Bible. My point was that our priorities seem to be wrong.

But you don't seem to want to consider that as an issue. Raising an original language of the Bible and Greek text were not the points I was making.

How about the translations for the 95% of the world that don't speak English as their first language?

 

[dysert]

I think we are thinking too narrowly.

The task of Bible translation is an enormous one

Oz

I hope you don't mind that I deleted the bulk of your note, but I wanted to reinforce what you said here. In fact, for someone serious about understanding Bible translations, versions, functional/literal/dynamic/optimal equivalence, idioms, readability, familiarity, etc., I highly recommend the book, "HCSB: Navigating the Horizons in Bible Translations" (it's free for Kindle). While its point of reference is obviously the HCSB (one of my favorites, btw), it goes into great depth about the issues I mentioned (and more). And it provides plenty of examples.

This book is for people who are serious about understanding what goes into a translation or revision. It's not hard reading, but you do have to take it in bite-sized chunks because there's so much there. So before we go about advocating our favorite Bibles because of reason such-and-such, I think we'll come to a much better understanding of the facts by reading this book.

 

[OzSpen]

I hope you don't mind that I deleted the bulk of your note, but I wanted to reinforce what you said here. In fact, for someone serious about understanding Bible translations, versions, functional/literal/dynamic/optimal equivalence, idioms, readability, familiarity, etc., I highly recommend the book, "HCSB: Navigating the Horizons in Bible Translations" (it's free for Kindle). While its point of reference is obviously the HCSB (one of my favorites, btw), it goes into great depth about the issues I mentioned (and more). And it provides plenty of examples.

This book is for people who are serious about understanding what goes into a translation or revision. It's not hard reading, but you do have to take it in bite-sized chunks because there's so much there. So before we go about advocating our favorite Bibles because of reason such-and-such, I think we'll come to a much better understanding of the facts by reading this book.

Thanks so much for that recommendation. I was unaware of it. I see that it is also available as a pdf download HERE.

I have found that too much of the discussion about Bible translations seems to miss some of the main issues that you have raised here. For many years I have depended on the textual scholarship of the late Bruce M Metzger 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd edn. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. It is now in its 4th edn.

My wife and I have supported translators with SIL and have talked with them as they have put a language into writing, taught literacy, and translated the NT and then the OT. What a task! We in the English speaking world are so blessed with the resources we have, and especially in light of the fact that only about 5% of the world's population has English as its first language.

I wonder if we would be having the same discussion over Bible translation for native languages in the Congo, Sudan and Uzbekistan?

 

[davidbrainerd]

How about the translations for the 95% of the world that don't speak English as their first language?

I think the people that speak those languages are more qualified to discuss the translations in those languages than we are. Lets all start discussing the translations of languages we don't know! Really?

 

[OzSpen]

I think the people that speak those languages are more qualified to discuss the translations in those languages than we are. Lets all start discussing the translations of languages we don't know! Really?

I'm talking about the need to provide Bible translations in all of these languages and there are 1,900+ languages without such a Bible. I'm discussing priorities, but you don't seem to want to go down that path.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

One can surely choose whatever they wish for a Bible, but the paper posted was a response, I think, to help those who are unsure about the KJV having heard some people say it is "horrible" and not a worthy Version.

Up to this point, I was able to agree with the direction you were going, but ...

Some of us believe it is a very worthy Version, and more close to the mind of God than many of the various renderings, appearing every few years to please the flesh. So, we can just leave this subject at that, and one can read anything they wish.

... While you don't exactly espouse KJV Onlyism here, saying that the KJV is somehow "... more close to the mind of God ... " is somewhat arrogant, no offense. While you qualify this by saying "many versions" rather than attempting to include all translations, it hints at an incorrect view, i.e., KJV Onlyism, which is, IMO, exceptionally errant in it's thinking and reasoning.

 

[davidbrainerd]

I'm talking about the need to provide Bible translations in all of these languages and there are 1,900+ languages without such a Bible. I'm discussing priorities, but you don't seem to want to go down that path.

How is my focusing on translating into a language I don't know going to produce a translation in that language?

Up to this point, I was able to agree with the direction you were going, but ...... While you don't exactly espouse KJV Onlyism here, saying that the KJV is somehow "... more close to the mind of God ... " is somewhat arrogant, no offense. While you qualify this by saying "many versions" rather than attempting to include all translations, it hints at an incorrect view, i.e., KJV Onlyism, which is, IMO, exceptionally errant in it's thinking and reasoning.

Saying "more close to the mind of God" is both bad English and not the best way to put it. The KJV is more literal of a translation than most. There is at least one modern translation that is just as literal: the NASB. But the NASB, in the New Testament, is a literal translation of a different Greek text. So far as the New Testament is concerned, the NKJV is just as literal as the KJV, and is based on the same Greek text. If, therefore, you want a literal translation, you can just use the NKJV. That will suffice for the New Testament and most of the Old. But in Psalms and Job, no translation in existence is as accurate as the KJV. The NKJV and NASB both fail there in several key places. But the KJV isn't perfect in Psalms or Job either itself. So, really, to do an in-depth study in Psalms and Job, you probably ought to use the KJV, NKJV, and NASB all three. Whereas anywhere else in the Old Testament the NKJV or NASB either one will be sufficient, and in the New Testament the NKJV will be sufficient. And throughout those parts of the Old Testament on which no doctrine is even based (Psalms doesn't qualify here), even the NIV of all horrors would be sufficient.

 

[vle045]

I'm pretty happy with my NLT life application bible. It includes other interpretations in the notes, for reference.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

what translation did the un-taught, un-educated fisherman in the NT use ?

Who told them what to say ?

 

[now faith]

If kool aid here means historical accuracy I'm all for it. You want to give your view and some references?

Their theology is common knowledge,I'm sure you have studied it.

 

[Boidae]

I need to correct what I had posted.

Yesterday, I went and exchanged my KJV for the NKJV. I had been thinking about it and my first Bible that I purchased was a NKJV, and I liked how it flowed. This one is a barebones reference Bible.

My wife did tell me that I can use her NT, Psalms and Proverbs KJV pocket Bible when I want to read from that version.

 

[Deano715]

I love the KJV language in my KJV Study Bible and its what I was raised with. Having said that I have an NLT my daughter and son in law gave me which I use for reference, a NIV which my church gave me when I got baptized and a NKJV I bought and it is in "giant print". I do find the NKJV much more "readable" for me and it retains some of the "old language feeling" if you understand my meaning. The print size is a plus for my old eyes as well so with all things considered the NKJV is the one I use. I think all of the versions I have would be fine for me as I always look to my KJV Nelson Commentary and/or Matthew Henry Commentary no matter which version im using at the time.

 

[dgminchrist]

I've always liked the KJV best because its language is the closest any written Word has come to the way I think.

 

[dgminchrist]

Just to add, The Word of God is His Word.

 

[dgminchrist]

Context is everything...right Let's not twist words...tempt is tempt. It's a stark contradiction. If we must "stick" to English I have to reject the KJV on this basis and I'll stick to my NIV.

Didn't God tempt Abraham to do something that would result in His glory? Didn't James say that God cannot be tempted with evil,neither tempteth he any man. The context in James tells us God doesn't tempt with evil.

 

[dgminchrist]

Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13 is all I need to know about the KJV

Didn't God tempt Abraham to do something that would result in His glory? James tells us that God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. The context in James tells us God doesn't tempt with evil.

 

[Keachian]

Their theology is common knowledge,I'm sure you have studied it.

As in Anglican with slight liberal leanings, sure, their views on the transmission of Scripture we've come to see as false, but they were astute for the data that they had at their disposal, far more so than the KJVO rhetoric.

 

[now faith]

As in Anglican with slight liberal leanings, sure, their views on the transmission of Scripture we've come to see as false, but they were astute for the data that they had at their disposal, far more so than the KJVO rhetoric.

How do you compare rhetoric?

By your own admission their transmission of Scripture is false,and has liberalism.
What data did they have besides the Vulgate?

So a Bible with false scripture and a liberal agenda translation is better than the panel of theologians and linguistics scholars commissioned by King James.

 

[Keachian]

How do you compare rhetoric?

By comparing both sides and figuring out which one both makes more sense and which one has a better grasp on reality.

By your own admission their transmission of Scripture is false,and has liberalism.
What data did they have besides the Vulgate?

Their view on the transmission and "corruption" of Scripture is incorrect in places, their theology is slightly liberal, two different statements. The Vulgate doesn't really factor into their view on the transmission of Scripture. A modern position on the Vulgate and its text type (Western) is that it varies so much from both the Byzantine and Alexandrian types this is largely due to the fact that it was continually produced while both of the other main branches were either snuffed out in the case of the Alexandrian, or severely confined in audience/copying in the case of the Byzantine, this is due to the rise of Islam in the East.

As to what data W&H actually used that differs from what the KJV translators (also Anglican and slightly liberal) had was access to Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and I think they had another Great Codex, but it was by the general consensus and antiquity of those Codices that they formulated their theory and produced their text.

So a Bible with false scripture and a liberal agenda translation is better than the panel of theologians and linguistics scholars commissioned by King James.

Now you're just putting words into my mouth, and not very well I might add, are you even trying to represent what I'm saying in any reasonable fashion? Textual Criticism from Erasmus through to Nestle and Aland, including that done by Scrivner has been a largely liberal leaning preoccupation as have some translations. "false scripture" and "liberal agenda" are loaded terms for what is being discussed here, considering the nature and difficulties of the Science/Art of textual criticism you cannot use these terms and have valid points to make. We do not know the theological positions of those who created the data that we need to sift through and so postulations of such a nature (linking the Alexandrian text-type to Origen because they are both associated with Alexandria for example) are preposterous and unfounded.