KJV Alone?

John Robie said:

Here's an example of the archaic language being referred to.

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

"Suffer" does not carry the same definition that it did 400 years ago. It's most likely that the KJV translators would use the word today since it's definition is different today. But at the time, it was a great word to use.

This doesn't mean that we can't use the KJV today. It was just an example of one the many words used then that are either out of use today, or that have different definitions. Hence, archaic.

Click to expand...

John Robie said:

Do you know what a straw man is? Same thing.

And since the writings of Shakespeare aren't in question, this is a straw man argument.

Click to expand...

John Robie said:

But understanding Shakespeare isn't important.

Click to expand...

dduc996 said:

I've never understood the notion that the KJV is hard to understand. As early as the age of 10 I remember reading my KJV , no margins no foot notes , just a straight King James Bible - I had no problem understanding it.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

Just to lend weight to what you speak of, in case it was not obvious that the translators were Anglican, and practiced infant Baptism:

Article XXVII: Of Baptism

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
The 39 Articles of Religion

Clergy had to subscribe to the 39 articles of Religion.

This Book of Articles before rehearsed, is again approved, and allowed to be holden and executed within the Realm, by the assent and consent of our Sovereign Lady ELIZABETH, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c. Which Articles were deliberately read, and confirmed again by the subscription of the hands of the Archbishop and Bishops of the Upper-house, and by the subscription of the whole Clergy of the Nether-house in their Convocation, in the Year of our Lord 1571.

Joe conveniently leaves out the numerous theological differences between the Anglican translators of the KJV, when discussing bias and theological problems among translators.

In addition, you can read the sermon of Richard Bancroft, Archbishop and the head of the KJV translation effort arguing with the puritan churches and endorsing a number of non-Baptist viewpoints in his sermon on Feb. 9, 1588.

These range from dictating that pastors should not use novel prayers fitting the situation, but should read their prayers from the common book of prayer, to the queen having an authoritative role in ecclesiastical matters, a rather lengthy diatribe on the three part structure of the church whereby the local clergy must submit to Bishops, and a statement that he accepts the first four ecumenical councils. This of course includes Chalcedon, which notes:

According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.

Joe didn't seem to thrilled with the theotokos/mother of God title in the veneration of Mary thread. Yet he doesn't seem to have a problem with the head of the KJV translation project accepting the council that solidified the title.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

I think most of the time the KJV is pretty straightforward to understand. There are some passages that are pretty tough though. For instance:

KJV
2Co 6:11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
2Co 6:12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
2Co 6:13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

compare:

ESV
2Co 6:11 We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide open.
2Co 6:12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.
2Co 6:13 In return (I speak as to children) widen your hearts also.

Now in this case the KJV retains more of the idiom, which I actually think is important. But it is not readily understandable to the person on the street without a little explanation.

The idiom "our mouth is open to you" may take a moment to process.

To understand the next part you have to realize that they saw the bowels as a center of strong affections or emotions. Kind of like the feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when you look at your child sleeping and think of how much they mean to you, etc. We use "heart" the same way as they did in the earlier part of the passage. But we don't usually use bowels that way.

Also straightened has a bit different meaning now, which adds to the idiom some additional difficulties.

So in this example we see that the KJV is actually closer to the original here than the usually pretty literal ESV. But it also practically needs additional information to understand for someone not from that culture, and not familiar with Elizabethan usage (in the case of straight).


That is always part of the trade-off when translating. Since different committees worked on different parts of the KJV you will even find some sections translating more idioms, and some engaging a bit more in dynamic equivalents to better get across the point.

Click to expand...