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

[jlmagee]

That, of course, begs the question of whether the connotation of "blessed" actually fit what Jesus was originally on about or just the informal theology that has built up over the centuries on that passage. There are some very good arguments that "happy", while not perfect, is much closer to what was originally intended.

While teaching on this subject, I found the word "fortunate" (Strong's?).
Following the circle, my statement was that I liked fortunate because if Jesus states that you are fortunate, you are going to be happy.

You make a real point. I can only state that all better translations use "blessed" (that may change over the next ten years, of course). Until then, I would like to think it sounds divinely bestowed happiness to use "blessed".

 

[ebia]

While teaching on this subject, I found the word "fortunate" (Strong's?).
Following the circle, my statement was that I liked fortunate because if Jesus states that you are fortunate, you are going to be happy.

You make a real point. I can only state that all better translations use "blessed" (that may change over the next ten years, of course). Until then, I would like to think it sounds divinely bestowed happiness to use "blessed".

CEB uses "happy".
Kingdom NT/NT for Everyone uses "wonderful news for..."
That's the two most significant completely new translations of the last couple of years.

"blessed" sounds very divine - especially when its pronounced bless'ed instead if blest - but is that "sound" actually true to the original languages. Like most of the 'high' language of the KJV and its ancestors I suspect not. Jesus and the NT (except maybe Hebrews) is much more earthy than the KJV language has led us to believe.

 

[Laureate]

The Hebrew word 'aShR and ShL both translate, 'blessed' and 'happy', and etymologically pertains to 'prosperous', and 'prosperity'.

Blessed has the conotation that prosperity is bestowed from on High.

'Fortunate' usually imparts good fortune, which either is accredited to one's own actions or luck: though in the mouth of most religeous persons it pertains to being blessed (from on high) it is typically used by non religeous persons as a random event where by chance one finds them self in the right place at the right time to receive such prosperity.

'Luck(y)' is used in many contexts as 'fortunate' yet frequently has a supersticious aspect to which the prosperity is attributed.

Blessed is more or less a reward for decent conduct.

Fortunate is usually an award for conduct or effort that is regardless to the presence of decency.

Lucky is usually a reward given by chance, and though an effort or action is performed conduct and decency is usually irrellevent.

 

[Keachian]

1. I could provide you with many links where men have done exhaustive research comparing verse after verse of the AV as it is compared to other versions for one to see but you would just reject the works by saying it was just their opinion, they are biased, etc.

Well the fact that you're seeming to base your whole argument on, "It's the Alexandrian text type, Origen was a heretic and was from Alexandria therefore Alexandrian text type is heretical" And haven't addressed the FACT that St Athanasius who was defender of what you say is stripped from the Bible by the removal of the comma johaneum, was from Alexandria simply makes this claim wildly untrue.

2. His own writings condemn him - just do the research.

I'm not able to at this point in time, but considering the posters that have posted in defense of Origen here and their track record with being reliable and on the money, I'm going to go with them.

3. "Scripture"? Please fine tune - which scripture - the orignals? You don't have those so do you have a final authority that you can hold in one hand? Which version?

If you want a final authority that I can hold in one hand, I'd go with the BHS and NA27/28, if you want my final authority in general then I'd also include critical apparatuses of the LXX and Vulgate,

I see no problem with this, they are readily available and in much the same way are similar to the texts that the KJV committee used to translate the KJV, the Textus Receptus (3 editions), Stephanus (2 editions), and the Complutensian (1 edition) are all critical texts born out of the critical scholarship of their day, not only that but the way in which the translators used the texts are in more or less a critical way.

Of course if you would rather me go with something in a single language I would probably consider the LXX/Patriarchal text tbqh

 

[Keachian]

Your short parody does speak to my point, however. By using a different (coherent) word that was accepted to mean unconditional love that can only extend from God, would demonstrate Peter's instability at that time. By using "love", the casual reader never notices the gap between Jesus' question and Peter's response. (Also, Jesus probably did not use the Greek word.)

I'll agree that yes much is lost to the limitation of English in the words it has for Love, we have one, Greek has 4, Hebrew has 3. But to a modern day reader, charity is giving things to the poor, regardless of whether it is out of love or not. So when they get to the 3rd verse of 1Cor13 we have basically from their perspective, if I do charity but have not charity then I am nothing, especially when talking to people who simply are far more interested in finding contradictions than studying the bible this is a big misunderstanding of what the text is saying.

 

[Dale]

I have found Young's Literal Translation to be helpful in resolving questions of this sort.


The King James and many other translations aim to give the Bible a formal, majestic sound. Yet some very knowledgeable people have told me that the New Testament in Greek is surprisingly informal, even flippant.




1 Corinthians 13

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

1If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling;
2and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing;
3and if I give away to feed others all my goods, and if I give up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing.
4The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up,
5doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil,
6rejoiceth not over the unrighteousness, and rejoiceth with the truth;
7all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth.
8The love doth never fail; and whether [there be] prophecies, they shall become useless; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall become useless;
9for in part we know, and in part we prophecy;
10and when that which is perfect may come, then that which [is] in part shall become useless.
11When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe;
12for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;
13and now there doth remain faith, hope, love -- these three; and the greatest of these [is] love.



--1 Corinthians 13, Young's Literal Translation




The Beatitudes from Matthew 5 in Young's Literal Translation


Matthew 5

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


1And having seen the multitudes, he went up to the mount, and he having sat down, his disciples came to him,
2and having opened his mouth, he was teaching them, saying:
3`Happy the poor in spirit -- because theirs is the reign of the heavens.
4`Happy the mourning -- because they shall be comforted.
5`Happy the meek -- because they shall inherit the land.
6`Happy those hungering and thirsting for righteousness -- because they shall be filled.
7`Happy the kind -- because they shall find kindness.
8`Happy the clean in heart -- because they shall see God.
9`Happy the peacemakers -- because they shall be called Sons of God.
10`Happy those persecuted for righteousness' sake -- because theirs is the reign of the heavens.
11`Happy are ye whenever they may reproach you, and may persecute, and may say any evil thing against you falsely for my sake --
12rejoice ye and be glad, because your reward [is] great in the heavens, for thus did they persecute the prophets who were before you.




*


*

 

[IisJustMe]

My final authority is the AV I hold in my hands - see how easy that was.
Again - what is your final authority?

As has been repeatedly stated to you, the 5,000 Greek manuscripts with no serious flaws that would call into question any section of God's word. Those are the only authority we have, as the KJV, as again has been repeatedly stated to you, is the most flawed of the three best literal translations. Now, as Stan has said, I'm done. You can't argue knowledgeably because you refuse to have knowledge. Have a blessed life.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. Just ask a non-biased liguist or English grammar teacher - lost or saved.

I have; you're wrong. The English language has changed dramatically since and is rapidly changing even now.

2. Wasn't a beleiver?!?!?! Try finding any documentation where he was a regenerated man and ever won a soul to Christ.

Based on your unhistoric view? Why should I?

Furthermore, what does that matter? Even sinners can be right. Truth isn't dependent on whether a person is saved or not but whether it is so. Truth isn't dependent on people.

3.

The KJV was translated under the auspices of my church. We know how to interpret it because it was translated for our liturgical use. That's why it is called an "Authorized Version;" it is an Anglican term for a translated that is authorize for us in our rites, rituals, liturgies, and other official services. And since Anglicanism is Catholic, it therefore makes the KJV a Catholic, but not Vatican or specifically Roman Rite, Bible.

<skip>

I've said it before and I'll say it again...it is because of the ridiculousness that can be found here is why, if book-burnering weren't such a heinous act, I'd burn to ashes every single KJV I could get my hands upon.

 

[AVBunyan]

As Now, as Stan has said, I'm done. You can't argue knowledgeably because you refuse to have knowledge. Have a blessed life.

I agree - time to part company - If you believe the AV to be the worse of the three then we are in different worlds. All your modern versions combined have not produced 1/10 the results of the AV. God can not bless a translation from the pen of a heathen philospher from which your modern versions come from.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. The English language has changed dramatically since and is rapidly changing even now.

2. And since Anglicanism is Catholic, it therefore makes the KJV a Catholic, but not Vatican or specifically Roman Rite, Bible.

3. I've said it before and I'll say it again...it is because of the ridiculousness that can be found here is why, if book-burnering weren't such a heinous act, I'd burn to ashes every single KJV I could get my hands upon.

1. Never said it didn't change - it has - it has gone downhill to the point to where it is basically English slang.

2. If the AV was in any way Catholic then the Chatholic church would not be against it so. THe fact that Rome is agains the AV is proof enough - I've read my history thank you.

3. It looks like the crowd you agree with is responsible for more than just book burnings - I've read Foxes Book of Martyrs, thank you.

 

[PaladinValer]

1. Never said it didn't change - it has - it has gone downhill to the point to where it is basically English slang.

Um, that's an opinion, not a fact. And it is a fact that no one speaks early modern English anymore, so Bibles written in its are, essentially, in a foreign language. One that is very related to today's modern English, no question, but different nonetheless. Spelling has since been standardized, vocabulary expanded, definitions changed, syntax modified, etc.

Most people who don't know how to read early modern English will, with not too much effort, be able to read early modern English but they won't be able to comprehend it perfectly due to vocabulary, syntax, and definition changes.

2. If the AV was in any way Catholic then the Chatholic church would not be against it so. THe fact that Rome is agains the AV is proof enough - I've read my history thank you.

I could simply counter this by saying "Straw Man Fallacy", which this is since I was talking about English Catholicism (Anglicanism) and not Roman/Vatican Catholicism, but, the fact is, most Roman Catholics like the KJV and it has been cited by not only Traditionalist Roman Catholics but even those who think the current See of Rome is Apostate! Here's a link to an official conclavist (!!!!!) website to prove my point beyond any shadow of rational doubt: Protestant Bible Texts Proves the Catholic Religion

Furthermore, I am an Anglican (and thereby, Catholic) but am also a historian. I daresay I know my stuff.

3. It looks like the crowd you agree with is responsible for more than just book burnings - I've read Foxes Book of Martyrs, thank you.

One of the biggest pile of biased refuse ever...and also completely unrelated to the topic at hand and yet another Straw Man.

Anglicanism...

1. Holds to the historic and ancient three orders of ordained ministry: deacons, priests, and bishops
2. Has an episcopal polity
3. Holds to the historic 7 major sacraments of Holy Baptism, Holy Chrismation/Confirmation, Holy Communion, Holy Unction, Holy Matrimony, Holy Reconciliation, and Holy Orders
4. Holds to sacramental theology
5. Teaches and practices paedobaptism
6. Teaches that Holy Baptism regenerates
7. Believes in the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion
8. Holds to the sacrificial aspect of Holy Eucharist (and thereby is sacerdotal)
9. Has historically accepted the perpetual virginity of St. Mary the Theotokos
10. Venerates Saints and has icons, statues, and relics
11. Is thoroughly liturgical
12. Holds to Apostolic Succession
13. Uses officially the Deuterocanonical Books and does defend doctrines with them
14. Uses traditional vesture and allows incense, crucifixes, and bells
15. Holds that Holy Tradition has a place in doctrine and faith.

...and, the KJV is under its auspices. We rejected the Geneva because it was Protestant.


Now, your counter to this point. No Straw Men, no Real Scotsman, no other logical fallacies, and no dodges, etc. Please, given the Catholicity of the Anglican Church and the fact that even conclavists use the KJV to prove their views which are also Catholic, how mind you is the KJV not Catholic?

 

[Dale]

AVBunyan,

Since you claim that anyone can learn to understand Elizabethan English with no problems, here's a trivia question.

What did Shakepeare's Hamlet mean by "Buzz, buzz"?



*

*

 

[IisJustMe]

AVBunyan,

Since you claim that anyone can learn to understand Elizabethan English with no problems, here's a trivia question.

What did Shakepeare's Hamlet mean by "Buzz, buzz"?



*

*

Too easy. He can google that one and come up with a plausible answer in five minutes.

 

[PaladinValer]

Too easy. He can google that one and come up with a plausible answer in five minutes.

But in that itself means he doesn't know how to read it correctly in the first place, which drives home the point that people typically don't know how to read early modern English.

 

[IisJustMe]

But in that itself means he doesn't know how to read it correctly in the first place, which drives home the point that people typically don't know how to read early modern English.

True, but he can always deny he googled it in the first place. This is the Internet. You expect people to be honest?

 

[PaladinValer]

True, but he can always deny he googled it in the first place. This is the Internet. You expect people to be honest?

Point taken, although admittedly, I would hope for honesty...

 

[newbeliever02072005]

Mod Hat On:


Thread has been moved from Christian Apologetics to Bibliology & Hermeneutics




Mod Hat Off

 

[Dale]

For the record, I'll complete my comments on Origen.




The harsh comments about Origen may result from not fully understanding when he lived and how Christian theology has changed since then.


Before Augustine of Hippo, St. Augustine to Catholics, Christian theology was chaotic. Augustine's City of God provided a theological system and was extremely persuasive and influential. The Roman Catholic Church solved its theological difficulties by adopting Augustine's theology. Protestants kept most of Augustine's system as well.


Augustine lived from 354 AD to 430 AD. Origen lived before Augustine, being born around 185 AD and died in 254 AD. Origen died a hundred years, a full century, before Augustine was born.


As a pre-Augustinian thinker, Origen was obviously not aware of, or influenced by, Augustine. It isn't reasonable to expect Origen to sound like a post-Augustine thinker, trained in the theology of Augustine.




*


*

 

[AVBunyan]

What did Shakepeare's Hamlet mean by "Buzz, buzz"?

Doesn't bother me to say I don't know - where did you get the idea that we are to understand everything in the scriptures? Even Peter stated that there were some things by Paul that were hard to be understood.

Let me ask you one - what does "slime of the purslain" mean? It shouldn't be a problem - it is in one of your newer versions - look it up. In the AV it is "the white of an egg". Updating it really helped you with that didn't it? Be honest - I was honest - you probably didn't know what that meant.

The AV came from Greek that was written in koine Greek - the average street Greek of the day. Origen's fifth column of his hexaphala which is your LXX was translated using Classical Greek - a much more complicated and fancy Greek - this is where all your versions came from.

Folks - I can never prove nor show you that the AV is superior to your modern versions - only God can show you spiritual things.

This modern versions vs. the AV is not an intellectual issue - it is a heart issue.

 

[Keachian]

That's interesting you admit that the Greek is in street Greek, yet you claim that modern translations using everyday language is bad and in fact that we should go back to the purity of the KJV English, I'd personally much prefer to have the Bible in the same sort of language that the originals did which by all accounts is a step just above marketplace Greek