TwinCrier's guide to the English Language

[mont974x4]

So long as the intended message isn't changed I have no problem with the various versions...so long as its read and not just a paperweight collecting dust.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The modern translations aren't reverent; they are functional and hurried and devoid of meter. They don't instill awe.

This is a VERY sweeping statement! The truth is that the character of recent translations of the Bible is extremely diverse, ranging from simple the New Century Version translated at the third grade reading level to the majestic New Jerusalem Bible and the exceptionally accurate and precise Updated New American Stand Bible (1995). The first four verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews are provided below as an illustration.

Heb. 1:1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets. He spoke to them many times and in many different ways. 2 And now in these last days God has spoken to us through his Son. God has chosen his Son to own all things. And he made the world through his Son. 3The Son reflects the glory of God. He is an exact copy of God’s nature. He holds everything together with the powerful word. The Son made people clan from their sins. Then he sat down at the right side of God the Great One in heaven. 4 The Son became much greater than the angels. And God gave him a name that is much greater than theirs. (NCV)


Heb. 1:1 At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; 2 but in our time, the final days, a he has spoken to us in the person of his Son, b whom he appointed heir of all things c and through whom he made the ages. d 3 He is the reflection of God's glory and bears the impress of God's own being, e sustaining all things by his powerful command; and now that he has purged sins away, he has taken his seat at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high. 4 So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name. (NJB)

Heb. 1:1. God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2. in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
3. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4. having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. (NASB, 1995)

Heb. 1:1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (KJV, recent edition)

If God Himself were to call me on the telephone and begin speaking to me in Swedish, I would immediately seek out a translator of Swedish who was very knowledgeable of both Swedish and English and who would give me a VERY accurate and precise translation without substituting meter or rhyme for accuracy and precision, and if the translation did not flow beautifully and eloquently that would not bother me at all—all that I would care about is the accuracy and the precision in translating the meaning of the words in their syntactical and contextual relationship.

The translators of the KJV had very little knowledge of the Greek language and virtually no Greek lexicons, grammars, or concordances to help them. Today, translators have scores of these to work with, and the lexicons and grammars and being revised or rewritten every several years as new information about the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek New Testament is learned from archaeological discoveries, grammatical analysis, and comparative studies that new advances in computer technology have made possible. Hundreds of volumes of exegetical commentaries on the New Testament books are now available to translators, none of which were available to the translators of the KJV. And thousands upon thousands of very detailed studies of parts of the individual books of the Greek New Testament are now available to translators, giving them vast amounts of data to help them to understand more clearly the precise meaning of individual words and phrases in their syntactical and contextual relationships.

 

[UBERROGO]

Nice post, I have to go make sure no one [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eths against a wall now.

 

[Eryk]

This is a VERY sweeping statement! The truth is that the character of recent translations of the Bible is extremely diverse, ranging from simple the New Century Version translated at the third grade reading level to the majestic New Jerusalem Bible and the exceptionally accurate and precise Updated New American Stand Bible (1995).

I've read the NIV, HCSB and the NASB1995 in their entirety, and large portions of several other translations, including the NJB. I'm impressed by the clarity of the NLT--it's as if the verses are custom-written for your own brain. But the verses of the Psalms tend to be longer and poetry is sacrificed for clarity. Hey, to each his own. Every verse of the NIV is written in perfect American English--a Bible Strunk & White could love, and this is the version I'd recommend to new believers. The translation of Amos in the HCSB is simply brilliant, but there are a few (very few) clunkers in that translation (imo) where the alliteration is awkward: "My soul is swallowed up in sorrow." The New Jerusalem Bible is the best modern version for literary quality (imo). I remember being very impressed by the Psalms and epistles.

But there is nothing sweeping or even unusual in saying that the King James is the preeminent literary translation, and that its language is "elevated" compared to the others. No one ever spoke the language of the KJV. People didn't talk that way in 1611, just as people in the 1950s didn't sound like Dylan Thomas poems.

I'd say most modern translators are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The Bible is being dumbed down for consumers who are not willing to smarten up. And there is something seemingly Gramscian in the undermining of holiness, as if Scripture shouldn't be impressive. Our sense of the holy is at stake here.

 

[mont974x4]

I've read the NIV, HCSB and the NASB1995 in their entirety, and large portions of several other translations, including the NJB. I'm impressed by the clarity of the NLT--it's as if the verses are custom-written for your own brain. But the verses of the Psalms tend to be longer and poetry is sacrificed for clarity. Hey, to each his own. Every verse of the NIV is written in perfect American English--a Bible Strunk & White could love, and this is the version I'd recommend to new believers. The translation of Amos in the HCSB is simply brilliant, but there are a few (very few) clunkers in that translation (imo) where the alliteration is awkward: "My soul is swallowed up in sorrow." The New Jerusalem Bible is the best modern version for literary quality (imo). I remember being very impressed by the Psalms and epistles.

But there is nothing sweeping or even unusual in saying that the King James is the preeminent literary translation, and that its language is "elevated" compared to the others. No one ever spoke the language of the KJV. People didn't talk that way in 1611, just as people in the 1950s didn't sound like Dylan Thomas poems.

I'd say most modern translators are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The Bible is being dumbed down for consumers who are not willing to smarten up. And there is something seemingly Gramscian in the undermining of holiness, as if Scripture shouldn't be impressive. Our sense of the holy is at stake here.

Poetry is of no consequence. It is the message that is important. So long as the original message is not watered down or messed with, I see no reason to downplay the authority, authenticity, or usefulness of newer translations.

To argue one translation is better than another is simply a more academic approach to the old this denomination is better than that one debate. It's divisive and generally a selfish and arrogant discussion that robs us all.

God is holy and His Word is holy whether it is written in old Enlgish, new English, Serbian, Japanese or any other language. The Holy Spirit will speak through it all to those He wills.


If you enjoy one version over another then by all means read it. The fact is we are free to choose and not free to demean other translations or people who who choose them.

 

[Eryk]

To argue one translation is better than another is simply a more academic approach to the old this denomination is better than that one debate. It's divisive and generally a selfish and arrogant discussion that robs us all.

If you enjoy one version over another then by all means read it. The fact is we are free to choose and not free to demean other translations or people who who choose them.

Actually, we don't have to treat everything as if it has equal merit. Radical equalitarianism isn't a Christian virtue.

And I never said that anyone isn't "free to choose" (what a slogan) and I did say that people are being saved through the modern translations.

 

[Joykins]

Thees and thous (and thy and thine) will trouble YOU no longer. These hard to understand archaic words are simple singular forms for the word YOU. You and your and yours are used when speaking to multiple people.

Thee and thou are also considered informal and "you" is considered formal. This is a distinction that did not carry over into non-early modern English so they can all be used as "you." Thou should always be used as the subject (like "I") and thee as the object (like "me"), unless you're a Quaker in which case Thee is used as both subject and object.

 

[zhilan]

Tune in next week, same bat time, same bat channel, when we learn that "I before E except after C" isn't so weird after all.

Can you really prove this?? I'm highly skeptical.....

*sings song from school, "I before E except after C except "eih" as in neighbor or sleight..."

I still remember all those painful C's on my elementary school report card for spelling.....

 

[arunma]

I've read the NIV, HCSB and the NASB1995 in their entirety, and large portions of several other translations, including the NJB. I'm impressed by the clarity of the NLT--it's as if the verses are custom-written for your own brain. But the verses of the Psalms tend to be longer and poetry is sacrificed for clarity. Hey, to each his own. Every verse of the NIV is written in perfect American English--a Bible Strunk & White could love, and this is the version I'd recommend to new believers. The translation of Amos in the HCSB is simply brilliant, but there are a few (very few) clunkers in that translation (imo) where the alliteration is awkward: "My soul is swallowed up in sorrow." The New Jerusalem Bible is the best modern version for literary quality (imo). I remember being very impressed by the Psalms and epistles.

But there is nothing sweeping or even unusual in saying that the King James is the preeminent literary translation, and that its language is "elevated" compared to the others. No one ever spoke the language of the KJV. People didn't talk that way in 1611, just as people in the 1950s didn't sound like Dylan Thomas poems.

I'd say most modern translators are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The Bible is being dumbed down for consumers who are not willing to smarten up. And there is something seemingly Gramscian in the undermining of holiness, as if Scripture shouldn't be impressive. Our sense of the holy is at stake here.

Eryk, if I may ask, what is your impression of the English Standard Version? I think the ESV is a most excellent balance between literary quality and readability.

 

[Adammi]

I'm sure that this has already been pointed out, but there are many modern revisions of Romeo and Juliette. For which I am very thankful, I can't imagine what 9th grade English would have been like without them. *memories*

I learned from these modern revisions that, "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?" has nothing to do with physical location.

 

[Eryk]

Eryk, if I may ask, what is your impression of the English Standard Version? I think the ESV is a most excellent balance between literary quality and readability.

The mixing of obsolete and modern grammar and vocabulary makes this a particularly awkward translation.

The online NET Bible has a similar problem--some parts are more literal than others, some are more dynamic. Overall, it just doesn't sound like ANYTHING.

I do appreciate the fact that the ESV is more literal here and there than the NASB ("Adam knew his wife"; "All Scripture is breathed out by God" for theopneustos).

The ESV is a slight revision of the RSV, itself a revision of the King. This is what happens:

James 1:19 KJV swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath

This verse is in cretic meter--accent on first and third of three syllables. Also note the alliteration of the s words.

James 1:19 ESV quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger;

The ESV has two syllables at the end instead of one, and the alliteration was lost by substituting quick.

This is why, in terms of style, the best modern translations are new translations, not revisions.

 

[JacobHall86]

If you let some ungodly scholar alter your bible out of laziness, then yes, I have a problem. The word of God doesn't need upgrades, KJV 1.0 works just fine. God doesn't need our help getting His point across.

I LOL'd at all this.

You do realize the Irony of saying all this without being able to read Greek and Hebrew right? You actually have let some UnGodly scholar alter the Bible into another langauge because of Laziness. If you, or anyone else were truely earnest in their defense of the Bible they would learn the Original Languages.

And the KJV is what you call an "upgrade" since its not the original languages.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The ESV is a slight revision of the RSV, itself a revision of the King. This is what happens:

James 1:19 KJV swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath

This verse is in cretic meter--accent on first and third of three syllables. Also note the alliteration of the s words.

James 1:19 ESV quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger;

The ESV has two syllables at the end instead of one, and the alliteration was lost by substituting quick.

This is why, in terms of style, the best modern translations are new translations, not revisions.

I believe that the New Testament documents are inspired writings and therefore I believe that the translation of them into English should place much more emphasis upon a precise translation of the meaning of the words in their syntactical and contextual relationships rather than upon style or upon alliteration, meter, or other qualities of sound. The English words “quick and “swift” are not exact synonyms. The word “quick” stresses “instancy of response and is likely to connote native rather than acquired power” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) and “applies especially to something that happens promptly or occupies but little time; it suggests alacrity or celerity, especially in action, rather than velocity of movement” (Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms published by Merriam-Webster). The word “swift,” on the other hand, “suggests great rapidity, frequently coupled with ease or facility of movement (Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms published by Merriam-Webster). In the case of James 1:19, the translation of the Greek word ταχὺς as “quick” is much to be preferred, therefore, over the translation of the word as “swift.”

It is very important here to remember that the English Standard Version is a revision of the Revised Standard Version and that the men who translated it were exceptionally well educated and had a command of the English language second to none. When the Revised Standard Version was revised in 1971, the revisers retained the word “quick” in James 1:19 and the translators of the English Standard Version did well to continue to retain it. It is also the choice of the translators of the NASB, the NRSV, the NIV, the NAB, HCSB, the NJB and several other recent translations of the Bible. All of these translators were, of course, familiar with the KJV and its use of the word “swift,” but they all chose the word “quick” over the word “swift.”

It must also be considered that the word “quick” is used only four times in the New Testament of KJV, and in all four places it has the meaning of “alive,” the original meaning of the word going back to the 12th century, rather than “without delay.” In one of these four places, Heb. 4:12, the use of the word “quick” meaning “alive” has caused more than one reader of the KJV to misunderstand the text:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[Adammi]

I think that the Bible must not only be translated into a language, but also into a culture.

 

[JPPT1974]

Yeah as it doesn't matter how you
Read the Bible whether KJV or NIV
Just as long as you understand and
Know that it's God's book.