Is the KJV inaccurate/should it be treated as legitimate?

[Audacious]

I say no.

For one thing, it's a biased translation written under an inferior scholarship; it's the oldest translation of the Bible in English, in a time where we knew much less about Biblical contexts and the languages which the Bible was originally written in than we do now, and we have a much more solid scholarly system than was had then as well. The translators were also told to make sure the scripture agreed with the official opinions of the Anglican Church, meaning that instead of being dedicated to a proper translation they were dedicated to upholding a certain belief and therefore heavily biased towards said belief in their translation.

For another, more modern translations are better-organized and less biased projects with solid attempts at uncovering the meaning of the words and less blatant bias towards one opinion or the other. They are open to criticism by the scholarly community and people are more free to disagree.

Of course, you've got certain things which don't seem to be in any Bible but are still valid and controversial such as the translation of 'virgin' as referring to Mary really meant 'young woman' and not 'a person who has not had sex', bringing into question our actual dedication into revealing truth instead of pandering to those with common, but very possibly inaccurate, opinions.
(Not that the whole 'mary=young woman' thing is definitely correct; I'm just saying that there seems to be solid reasoning for why it could really mean that and that it's telling that nobody's even so much suggested as to put it into canon.).

James

 

[WinBySurrender]

With its strange and inaccurate quirks like calling the Passover meal "Easter" and things like that, the KJV might not be the best, but it is still a very good Bible, and you err in believing the reference to "virgin" vs. "young woman" is a mistake. Due to the fact that young unmarried women were not only assumed to be virgin but were almost all, in fact, virgin, the translation of parthenos as "virgin" is not inaccurate at all. The NASB and the ESV, the two most accurate translations, also rightly render parthenos as "virgin".

The King James version is excellent, but we have since learned a great deal about both ancient Greek and Hebrew. Our understanding of Greek has grown significantly, particularly with the discovery that the Greek Bible was in common Greek, but our understanding of Hebrew has vastly improved since the 17th century, during which time the ancient Hebrew was very poorly understood. The NASB clearly benefits from a better understanding of the languages, and presents not only closer translations, but provides notes for certain aspects of translation. When the NASB and KJV differ on the rendering of a text, which is not based on variance in the manuscripts, the NASB is usually more favorable to the original languages. Also, slight variations in words chosen and sentence forms used throughout the NASB reflect our current understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, which has improved dramatically in 400 years.

The NASB also recognizes Greek translations of Hebrew names and translates the names consistently, as opposed to the KJV which gives us multiple names for the same person; for example, the KJV calls Judah, the son of Israel, "Judas" in Matthew 1:2, because that's how it is in Greek. The NASB simply calls him Judah in both the Old and New Testaments; this is simpler to understand and just as accurate.

 

[hedrick]

Of course the AV isn't the first translation in English. It was written to displace a highly popular translation, the Geneva Bible. I do find it somewhat ironic to see conservative Protestant seeing the AV as the perfect translations, since it was an Anglican translation designed to displace a Reformed one.

Most of the rest of the discussion depends upon your position on both higher and lower criticism. I agree with most of Audacious' judgements, but many readers here will not.

Presumably there has only been one virgin birth, so the original young woman that Isaiah referred to can't have been a virgin. You don't even need to go into the subtleties of OT Hebrew to see that.

 

[ebia]

Of course the original context in Isaiah doesn't try to imply that the young woman in question will have a baby while she is a virgin - that's not what it's about, whatever connotations the hebrew word has.

The point of the passage is "within the time it takes for the lad to grow up this will happen...

 

[WinBySurrender]

Presumably there has only been one virgin birth, so the original young woman that Isaiah referred to can't have been a virgin. You don't even need to go into the subtleties of OT Hebrew to see that.

Of course the original context in Isaiah doesn't try to imply that the young woman in question will have a baby while she is a virgin - that's not what it's about, whatever connotations the hebrew word has.

The point of the passage is "within the time it takes for the lad to grow up this will happen...

The OP's reference was to Mary, Jesus' mother, not to Isaiah 7:14.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The KJV/AV may not represent the best in scholarship as scholarship has grown in relation to the growth of the number of manuscripts we have today; however in its time it was rather superb scholarship. Furthermore, its poetic language is among the best the English tongue has produced, influencing English writers until the present day, including Shakespeare and Milton.

Are there superior translations today? Sure, of course. But give credit where credit is due. The KJV/AV is as much a work of art as it was an exquisitely produced translation by some of the brightest minds of early 17th century England.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ebia]

The OP's reference was to Mary, Jesus' mother, not to Isaiah 7:14.

Which translations translate Matthew 1:23 as other than virgin?

 

[Harry3142]

Which translations translate Matthew 1:23 as other than virgin?

The original RSV translated it as 'a young woman' rather than 'virgin'. I still remember the furor which that translation caused in certain churches in the 1960's.

 

[ebia]

The original RSV translated it as 'a young woman' rather than 'virgin'. I still remember the furor which that translation caused in certain churches in the 1960's.

Are you sure?

 

[hedrick]

The original RSV translated it as 'a young woman' rather than 'virgin'. I still remember the furor which that translation caused in certain churches in the 1960's.

Unfortunately all of my copies are the RSV second edition, and the online copies typically aren't labelled. But the references I find to the controversy all talk about Is 7:14. I've seen no evidence that Matthew was involved. This is the Bible I grew up with, and I was aware of the controversy. Everything I remember is about Is 7:14. The Greek of Matthew is quite clear. I've never heard of it being translated "young woman."

I did find a list of all the changes in the Catholic Edition. This isn't one. I'm pretty sure no Catholic bishop would have approved a Bible that had "young woman" in Matthew.

 

[stan1953]

I say no.

For one thing, it's a biased translation written under an inferior scholarship; it's the oldest translation of the Bible in English, in a time where we knew much less about Biblical contexts and the languages which the Bible was originally written in than we do now, and we have a much more solid scholarly system than was had then as well. The translators were also told to make sure the scripture agreed with the official opinions of the Anglican Church, meaning that instead of being dedicated to a proper translation they were dedicated to upholding a certain belief and therefore heavily biased towards said belief in their translation.

For another, more modern translations are better-organized and less biased projects with solid attempts at uncovering the meaning of the words and less blatant bias towards one opinion or the other. They are open to criticism by the scholarly community and people are more free to disagree.

Of course, you've got certain things which don't seem to be in any Bible but are still valid and controversial such as the translation of 'virgin' as referring to Mary really meant 'young woman' and not 'a person who has not had sex', bringing into question our actual dedication into revealing truth instead of pandering to those with common, but very possibly inaccurate, opinions.
(Not that the whole 'mary=young woman' thing is definitely correct; I'm just saying that there seems to be solid reasoning for why it could really mean that and that it's telling that nobody's even so much suggested as to put it into canon.).

James

I was saved in 1971 at the age of 18 and found the KJV to be very hard to understand, given it's language and intended demographic target of 1611. I started reading the J.B. Phillips. This was very helpful. I found at the time that my pastors spend a good deal of their sermon time, explaining what the KJV was saying in modern terms. In 1973 the NIV came out and I jumped on it. Finally a modern English version that was up-to-date. I got into the Word a lot more. I also discovered the NASB soon after and loved it as well. A little more formal and technical but a great read. I now use the NIV 2011, NASB and HCSB(Holeman) mostly, but with ALL the on-line content available I have access to 20 English version whenever I want. I find the previous three very comprehensive.
Unfortunately so many people have used the KJV during their life that their mindset is based on the KJV and cannot look at anything else that may sway their mind SET. To bad we weren't all fluent in Greek.

 

[wayseer]

I say no.

For one thing, it's a biased translation written under an inferior scholarship; it's the oldest translation of the Bible in English, in a time where we knew much less about Biblical contexts and the languages which the Bible was originally written in than we do now, and we have a much more solid scholarly system than was had then as well. The translators were also told to make sure the scripture agreed with the official opinions of the Anglican Church, meaning that instead of being dedicated to a proper translation they were dedicated to upholding a certain belief and therefore heavily biased towards said belief in their translation.

For another, more modern translations are better-organized and less biased projects with solid attempts at uncovering the meaning of the words and less blatant bias towards one opinion or the other. They are open to criticism by the scholarly community and people are more free to disagree.

Of course, you've got certain things which don't seem to be in any Bible but are still valid and controversial such as the translation of 'virgin' as referring to Mary really meant 'young woman' and not 'a person who has not had sex', bringing into question our actual dedication into revealing truth instead of pandering to those with common, but very possibly inaccurate, opinions.
(Not that the whole 'mary=young woman' thing is definitely correct; I'm just saying that there seems to be solid reasoning for why it could really mean that and that it's telling that nobody's even so much suggested as to put it into canon.).

James

You can start a bun fight over this without too much trouble and unless you are skilled in the use of koine Greek then the whole matter is probably questionable at best.

Despite your hesitation and my preferences the KJV is as accurate as you will need.

 

[LuxMundi]

it's the oldest translation of the Bible in English

No it's not

 

[PaladinValer]

I say no.

For one thing, it's a biased translation written under an inferior scholarship;

STOP.

First of off, those who know me know what is going to happen. However, let's make a few things clear:

1. The scholarship of the KJV on the texts it used to be translated from is actually superbly done. While it is true that its base sources are, indeed, compared to all others we now have available, poor, that does not have anything to do with how well it is translated (its scholarship).
2. You are right that it is a biased translation - it was translated under the auspices of my Anglican Church, which is why it is truly a Catholic (just not Roman Catholic) translation. It was written to be the next Authorized Version for my church, which has to do with its use in our rites, liturgies, rituals, etc (in other words, it has nothing to do with it being the "best," "ultimate," or somehow "only" Bible that can be used outside church).

it's the oldest translation of the Bible in English,

Incorrect. The KJV is the 3rd AV in the Anglican Church. The 2nd was the Bishop's Bible and the 1st was the Great Bible. Furthermore, there have been previous Bibles written in English, such as the Geneva Bible.

in a time where we knew much less about Biblical contexts

WHAT?!



Read: Early Church Fathers.
Read: Caroline Divines
Read: Martin Luther
Read: 16th and 17th century Roman Catholic Biblical scholars

Good grief!

and the languages which the Bible was originally written in than we do now, and we have a much more solid scholarly system than was had then as well.

Oh for crying out loud.

The translators were also told to make sure the scripture agreed with the official opinions of the Anglican Church, meaning that instead of being dedicated to a proper translation they were dedicated to upholding a certain belief and therefore heavily biased towards said belief in their translation.

And what are those beliefs, if I might inquire? Please, no sudden research; schema only.

For another, more modern translations are better-organized and less biased projects with solid attempts at uncovering the meaning of the words and less blatant bias towards one opinion or the other. They are open to criticism by the scholarly community and people are more free to disagree.

Um, no. Modern versions are often just as biased or even moreso. Furthermore, the organization that led to the KJV was very good even to today's standards.

Lastly, the KJV was written by no one BUT scholars!

Of course, you've got certain things which don't seem to be in any Bible but are still valid and controversial such as the translation of 'virgin' as referring to Mary really meant 'young woman' and not 'a person who has not had sex', bringing into question our actual dedication into revealing truth instead of pandering to those with common, but very possibly inaccurate, opinions.

That has nothing to do with the KJV. That has to do whether one translates Isaiah from the Masoretic or from the Septuagint.

Look, I'm not apologizing for the KJV's use. I have said, and I will say it again: if book burning weren't heinous and was allowed by the Church, the first book I'd burn is the KJV.

However, I am not going to allow the KJV to be accused of things it is not guilty of, just as I will not allow it to be lauded for things it is not either.

 

[WinBySurrender]

No it's not

Right. Wycliffe's translation into Middle English was the first. Myles Coverdale did the first "modern" English translation, if early 16th century English can be called "modern."

 

[stan1953]

it's the oldest translation of the Bible in English, in a time where we knew much less about Biblical contexts and the languages which the Bible was originally written in than we do now, and we have a much more solid scholarly system than was had then as well. The translators were also told to make sure the scripture agreed with the official opinions of the Anglican Church, meaning that instead of being dedicated to a proper translation they were dedicated to upholding a certain belief and therefore heavily biased towards said belief in their translation.

King James DID influence his namesake translation as did the translaters. James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

I found the following list;

5th–11th century
Wessex Gospels ·
Old English Hexateuch ·
Old English Bible translations

Middle English
Wycliffe ·
Middle English Bible translations

16th–17th century

Tyndale ·
Coverdale ·
Matthew ·
Great Bible ·
Taverner ·
Geneva ·
Bishops' ·
Douay–Rheims ·
Authorized King James

18th–19th century
Challoner ·
Webster's ·
Young's Literal ·
Revised ·
Darby ·
Joseph Smith ·
Quaker

20th century
American Standard ·
Rotherham's Emphasized ·
Ferrar Fenton ·
Worrell New Testament ·
Knox ·
Basic English ·
Revised Standard ·
Anchor ·
New World ·
New English Bible ·
New American Standard ·
Good News ·
Jerusalem ·
New American ·
Living ·
New International ·
New Century ·
Bethel ·
New King James ·
New Jerusalem ·
Recovery ·
New Revised Standard ·
Revised English ·
Contemporary English ·
The Message ·
Clear Word ·
New Life ·
21st Century King James ·
Third Millennium ·
New International Reader's ·
New International Inclusive Language ·
God's Word ·
New Living ·
Complete Jewish Bible ·
International Standard ·
Holman Christian Standard

21st century
World English ·
English Standard ·
Today's New International ·
New English Translation (NET Bible) ·
New English Translation of the Septuagint ·
Orthodox Study Bible ·
The Voice ·
Common English Bible ·
WGC Illustrated ·
Apostolic Bible Polyglot ·
Open English Bible ·
Eastern Orthodox Bible ·
New American Bible Revised Edition ·
Lexham English Bible

 

[LuxMundi]

If we are to judge the KJV then we should judge it by its own standards, surely it is testimony to it that 400 years after it was published it is still very popular. On purely literary grounds it has shaped the English language.

 

[WinBySurrender]

If we are to judge the KJV then we should judge it by its own standards, surely it is testimony to it that 400 years after it was published it is still very popular. On purely literary grounds it has shaped the English language.

The Magna Carta shaped democratic government, too, but that's no reason to cling to it as the end-all, be-all of documents as KJV Onlyists cling to that very good yet antiquated work.

 

[pilgrim1999]

James,

I'll preface this by noting that I'm no KJV onlyist by any stretch of the imagination, although I have great respect for that translation, as do most scholars that favor different underlying texts and translation methods.

That being said, if the KJV is not "legitimate" then is it your position that there was no "legitimate" English translation in print until (presumably) the Revised Version of 1885? If the KJV is not "legitimate" now then how was it legit in the 17th-19th Centuries?

If the translation of "virgin" in Isa. 7:14 invalidates the translation, then no translation is legit or accurate except for the RSV, NRSV, the NET and perhaps a few lesser known ones. Your profile says that you prefer the NIV. If I'm not mistaken, even the gender-neutral NIV 2011 that so many are up in arms about has "virgin." (No need to get off track on the NIV2011 here!) No legit scholar is going to agree that any translation is 100% accurate. Otherwise you'd have NIV Onlyists, NASB Onlyists, etc.

With all due respect, for you to say that the KJV is "the oldest translation in English" demonstrates gross ignorance on the subject of English Bible translation. As others have previously noted, there were several translations that preceded it. I suggest consulting Michael Marlowe's Bible Researcher site or even the relevant Wikipedia articles to help you get up to speed on the subject of the history and methodology of English Bible translation. (Sorry, I don't have enough posts to link but you should be able to find those resources easily enough.)

 

[LuxMundi]

The Magna Carta shaped democratic government, too, but that's no reason to cling to it as the end-all, be-all of documents as KJV Onlyists cling to that very good yet antiquated work.

I agree, but we also do it a disservice if we judge it by what they didn't know, if we judge it based upon what they did know then it is outstanding and has shaped the culture of our two nations massively. The same with the Prayer Book of 1662