Is the KJV more than a translation

[DamianWarS]

There seems a specific culture that looks at the KJV as the supreme authority of the written word of God above all else. I have a hard time following this logic as there is a whole lot of history before the KJV and after the KJV in thousands of languages that it seems rather arbitrary to pick the KJV above all else. This culture feels very ethnocentric I might add which then dips into offensive areas. Should not our quest in determining responsible scripture be a little more sophisticated and more focused at our mission?

 

[Endeavourer]

This culture feels very ethnocentric I might add which then dips into offensive areas. Should not our quest in determining responsible scripture be a little more sophisticated and more focused at our mission?

Can you elaborate on this culture you are referencing? What ethnocentricity?

What offensive areas?

What sophistication is lacking?

 

[JackRT]

There seems a specific culture that looks at the KJV as the supreme authority of the written word of God above all else. I have a hard time following this logic as there is a whole lot of history before the KJV and after the KJV in thousands of languages that it seems rather arbitrary to pick the KJV above all else. This culture feels very ethnocentric I might add which then dips into offensive areas. Should not our quest in determining responsible scripture be a little more sophisticated and more focused at our mission?

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.


The King James Version (1611) of the bible is by no means the first English translation. The Wyclif Bible was published in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1534, the Coverdale (Matthew) Bible in 1535, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and finally the Roman Catholic version, the Douai Bible, in 1609. It is also worth noting that 80% of the Old Testament and 90% of the New Testament are incorporated directly from the Bishop’s Bible into the King James Version.

 

[Rion]

It's not ethnocentric, AFAIK, but more reactionary towards more modern translations.

 

[Dave G.]

I think we can be well assured that Jesus didn't walk around speaking Shakespearean English, so ya it's a translation. Not only that but the flare or bling of that period of English brought in translation problems not present in some other translations. Some people feel authority in that style speaking but guess what ? It causes a few things to have reverse meaning ( anyone is free to do their own search about it's inaccuracies, you will find several, some different from other translation inaccuracies but they all have some) !

I find the NKJV to be easier to read. My wife loves her Geneva .

 

[Albion]

We need to keep all of that in perspective.

On the one hand, there indeed are people who think that the KJV (actually called the Authorized Version [AV] ) is the only reliable translation. They might be right, but if not, which other one is?

But that group, identified as KJVO (King James Version Only) is rather small and probably does not deserve as much recognition as they get in these kinds of debates. Most Christians, like myself, who prefer the AV, do so for other reasons.

Aside from the fact that it was my church/denomination which produced it, this version is widely considered to be the most beautiful of all and the most inspirational of all. It has been called "the most beautiful book in the English language," in fact.

Secondly, it is the version that "won the world." Regardless of readability and everything else that people say against the AV, this is the translation that brought the Gospel to much of the world during the great era of European and Christian expansion, the 18-20th centuries. Worldwide, no other translation is better known or more often used.

And thirdly, a very large number of expressions that we all use in ordinary conversation without giving any thought to their origins are, in fact, derived from the wording used in this Bible translation. And as for the specifically religious phrases found in the AV, it's worth noting that even people who say it's too hard to understand or that it's written in an old-fashioned style will quote from the AV rather than from some' modern language' edition when making a point on these forums.

 

[com7fy8]

people who say it's too hard to understand or that it's written in an old-fashioned style

But if there was challenging and old-fashioned grammar for how to get a million dollars, would this be a problem?

 

[miamited]

Hi damian,

Well, it has long been my understanding that God gave unto mankind His Scriptures that men may find the way of His salvation. Of all the reliable translations that I've been involved with (and there are at least a dozen) none of them have failed in that purpose. Yes, there are variations in a word or verse or even a couple of verses from one translation to another, but so far as I've found, none of these minuscule variations are related to the clear explanation of God's way of salvation.

Even the Message translation, which I don't much care for because of the crudeness of some of its translation, and the Good News translation, which I think can be particularly loose, cannot be read thoroughly and leave one wondering the purpose of God in delivering His Son to us as the acceptable substitute for our sin. They both make perfectly clear that all men are sinners and in need of a Savior if eternal life with God is to be found. They all make clear that the Savior needed is Jesus. They all make clear that God asks us to repent of our sin and strive to live a life seeking after Him. They all make clear that God asks us to do two things in this life; love Him with all that we are and love one another.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[disciple1]

There seems a specific culture that looks at the KJV as the supreme authority of the written word of God above all else. I have a hard time following this logic as there is a whole lot of history before the KJV and after the KJV in thousands of languages that it seems rather arbitrary to pick the KJV above all else. This culture feels very ethnocentric I might add which then dips into offensive areas. Should not our quest in determining responsible scripture be a little more sophisticated and more focused at our mission?

I don't like the KJV it was written in 1611, and that langue no longer exists.

 

[DamianWarS]

Can you elaborate on this culture you are referencing? What ethnocentricity?

What offensive areas?

What sophistication is lacking?

Elevating an English translation of the bible as better than any other and one that is specifically locked to a geographical location and time is ethnocentric. This leads to being offensive as all ethnocentric expressions tend to be because they can only interpret the world in very narrow lense; it is very colonialist mindset and can send a message that you must confirm to western/english cultures to understand the bible or be a true Christian. Sophistication is lacking because the gospel is narrowed and boxed in rather than looking at cultures as added value they are only tolerated at best but not accepted. Perhaps to a colonialist there is a ethnocentric sophistication that they may feel is best but this only repeats the same problems and is not the sophistication I'm referring to.

 

[Albion]

But if there was challenging and old-fashioned grammar for how to get a million dollars, would this be a problem?

An excellent point! We hear that the KJV/AV is outdated, not the way we talk, etc. BUT we don't shirk from learning professional languages in school, for instance with medical and health technologies or legal terminology. Indeed, whatever our careers are, there are likely to be words, phrases, and so on that no one outside of the profession uses or, possibly, even knows.

No one writes posts saying that this must be ended, or that Jesus didn't go around talking like that, etc.

But when it comes to our religious faith...then we must speak like sixth-graders would! Huh??

You know, members of other religions--people you meet on the street--teach their children the language of their faith. Jews, for example, go to "Hebrew School" in order to learn the language that is related to God. Not us. We have to have the word of God put into the form of a "Dick and Jane" reader or else we're overwhelmed. (sigh)

 

[Albion]

I don't like the KJV it was written in 1611, and that langue no longer exists.

Most of it does; and some of us think that it's not the hardest thing in the world to learn what the rest of it is saying--even if it is a different langue [sic].

 

[DamianWarS]

An excellent point! We hear that the KJV/AV is outdated, not the way we talk, etc. BUT we don't shirk from learning professional languages in school, for instance with medical and health technologies or legal terminology. Indeed, whatever our careers are, there are likely to be words, phrases, and so on that no one outside of the profession uses or, possibly, even knows.

No one writes posts saying that this must be ended, or that Jesus didn't go around talking like that, etc.

But when it comes to our religious faith...then we must speak like sixth-graders would! Huh??

You know, members of other religions--people you meet on the street--teach their children the language of their faith. Jews, for example, go to "Hebrew School" in order to learn the language that is related to God. Not us. We have to have the word of God put into the form of a "Dick and Jane" reader or else we're overwhelmed. (sigh)

Regardless of the reading level I think the archaic language immediately conjures up cold religious systems that people generally pull away from unless of course it's Christmas. It's estranged to the modern world and if we carry this language then do we also not risk estranging the gospel as well?

 

[Albion]

Regardless of the reading level I think the archaic language immediately conjures up cold religious systems that people generally pull away from unless of course it's Christmas.

I suppose that different people perceive this differently. But most of the people I know seem to feel that the dignified and elegant, uplifting language of the KJV is special and not in the least 'cold' or the rest of what you said.

It's estranged to the modern world and if we carry this language then do we also not risk estranging the gospel as well?

No. And it's not "estranged to the modern world" either. Just pay attention to which Bible translations the people you think are estranged quote when they are referring to the Bible.

Do they make their point by saying, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty rushing wind..." OR do they say, "Suddenly there was a noise from the sky which sounded like a strong wind blowing?"

And what about the last book of the Bible--Revelation? It is full of unintelligible visions and confusing analogies no matter which translation is used. By the logic of the opponents of the KJV, the obvious course of action would be to ditch it altogether or at least to reduce it to "And I saw some stuff that's hard to figure out but it was about heaven." LOL

 

[JackRT]

By the logic of the opponents of the KJV

I really don't know any Christians who oppose the KJV although there are quite a number who oppose it being anything more than just another translation that was good at the time but is now somewhat out of date.

 

[AlexDTX]

I don't like the KJV it was written in 1611, and that langue no longer exists.

It is in English, what language are we speaking? As for the Elizabethian differences people still watch Shakespearean plays in that language. And millions read the KJV still today. So how does it not exist?

 

[Albion]

I really don't know any Christians who oppose the KJV although there are quite a number who oppose it being anything more than just another tralation.

I guess it depends on what one means by "oppose." No, I don't think there are many people who want every copy of the KJV burned, but when they go on and on about how it estranges people, how it's cold, deadening to the human spirit, produces excessive formalism in worship, cannot be understood by modern people, is outdated or a even written in a different language...

Yes, all of that and more is said by those who advocate replacing the KJV. So does that constitute "opposition?" I would say so, but I'm willing to agree that it doesn't mean that the KJV should be banned from every public library and church pew.

 

[com7fy8]

Never mind if certain Jewish children understand the Torah > I am told they memorize it!

Jews, for example, go to "Hebrew School" in order to learn the language that is related to God.

This can be good, but can't it be a cultural thing? We need to make sure we do not get ourselves culturally isolated and inbred with only a cultural group or with people who are limited by what scholars of their isolated group understand.

We have to have the word of God put into the form of a "Dick and Jane" reader or else we're overwhelmed. (sigh)

A problem with an earlier translation, though, is how this world can keep changing meanings of words. This could in fact be a strategy of Satan, so people reading an earlier translation will not correctly understand certain words, such as "hate" and "love" and "religion" and "shambles". So, it can be good to have translations which have up-to-date words and grammar. But with this can be the problem of how ones can base their translation work on their own agendas and ignorance.

I notice how certain people say the King James Bible is the only correct Bible. And they say it is not right to speak in another tongue. But King James is not the tongue being spoken by them > they do not use "thee" and "thy" and other King James words in their conversational and written vocabulary.

 

[disciple1]

It is in English, what language are we speaking? As for the Elizabethian differences people still watch Shakespearean plays in that language. And millions read the KJV still today. So how does it not exist?

I don't like the KJV it was written in 1611, and that langue no longer exists.

It is in English, what language are we speaking

Every language has changed except Hebrew and Greek, that's what the bible was written in, the English language is still changing.

For and example, a song was written the 40's the singer said they were young and gay, total different meaning now.

The KJV 400 years ago meant something else, it was even pronounced different, what's written inside.

 

[Albion]

Never mind if certain Jewish children understand the Torah > I am told they memorize it!This can be good, but can't it be a cultural thing? We need to make sure we do not get ourselves culturally isolated and inbred with only a cultural group or with people who are limited by what scholars of their isolated group understand.

Well, we all know that the situation of Jews in this country and the situation of Christians is not comparable on several levels. My point there was simply that observant Jewish parents send their kids to schools in order to learn the language of the Hebrew Scriptures which we Christians most often do not do, preferring instead to say "it's too hard."

So, it can be good to have translations which have up-to-date words and grammar.

Agreed. I think it would be a good idea if every Christian got himself one of those "Four Translations" books in which four different Bible translations are side-by-side in parallel columns. That solves the problem and doesn't require the extreme attitudes that some opponents of the KJV hold.

I notice how certain people say the King James Bible is the only correct Bible. And they say it is not right to speak in another tongue. But King James is not the tongue being spoken by them > they do not use "thee" and "thy" and other King James words in their conversational and written vocabulary.

That last point seems irrelevant to me, so long as the meaning comes through--which it does. But again, the KJVOnly people are relatively few and I don't think it's right to picture the advocates of using the KJV (for all the good reasons I listed a few posts ago) as being in the same camp as those KJVO people.