Grade Level

I agree entirely with the above. A preacher who uses a KJV has to "translate" a lot more than a fellow minister of the Word using a modern version like the TNIV,HCSB etc.

Last Sunday my pastor who only uses the KJV in his sermons used some phrases which I had jotted down.

"Don't hate your brother or sister in the Lord."

In Romans 6:6 he paraphrased "the old man" terminology which can produce chuckles today. He said "our old self' as the TNIV has it.

After reading it in the King James Version, he paraphrased Romans 6:5 along TNIV lines :"We have been united with him in His death."

I'd like for a modern day preacher to try to preach using only 1769 Benjamin Blayney-speak. I don't think it's possible.

Therefore, since KJV preachers resort to modern English speech when explaining the text -- why don't they cut to the chase? They should use a faithful modern version and spend less time in the pulpit interpreting archaic sayings.

 

I have always seen that too. The preacher at my church will read the subject verses from the KJV then lays it out with " the familiar King James says" then "those who use modern versions it says" then he combines the two. It actually makes a lot of sense when you hear it.

He does expository preaching with a combination but always defaulting to the Greek definitions of words when needed.

 

The problem with what you suggest is that it is not true of many languages outside of English. When I worked in Europe they could not understand why we wrote and spoke differently. If one reads and studies the Bible he will also realize that most of the people could not read (only about 2% could). So the scriptures were read to them. For example when the NT was written the letters were read to them and they understood what was read. Any commentary was in the same language of the time. It was the same language that people spoke. So to read KJV English and comment in modern English is not being true to what actually happened historically. It may represent the American way somewhat, but not at all what the early church experienced.

 

You can't actually believe that rubbish!

I was just trying to make excuses for you. I admit that I was wrong to do that.

A high school graduate (or student) already has the basis for a full understanding of the KJV. He gets Shakespeare if he wants it or not. So he doesn't need to put a lot of extra time into it. All he has to do is look up the occasional word. That isn't unreasonable because he will have to do the same thing to understand the MV's.

 

I have a HS diploma & a college diploma (some education in Christian institutions, some in public schools) and I somehow managed to avoid Shakespeare completely (to the best of my recollection). I don't recall my children (3 finished HS) mentioning that they studied Shakespeare, either.

 

He may not actually "get" Shakespeare. Being able to read words on a page is very different than understanding and following something.

Furthermore, the Bible isn't Shakespeare and should not be considered to be so.

No, you also have to deal with a difficult syntax/sentence structure.

Not nearly so much though, in fact, very rarely.

 

William D. Mounce wrote: "The KJV is written at about a twelfth-grade level" (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 21).

 

What about those words that a present English reader thinks that he knows the meaning of but the words were actually used with a very different meaning in 1611?

James Gurnhill noted: “When the word occurs in old writings, with a meaning very different from its present one, it is then the real difficulty arises” (Breeches Bible, p. 74). Alister McGrath observed: “Shifts in meaning can easily lead to misunderstandings of what an older translation meant” (In the Beginning, p. 237). John Brown wrote: “The translators in writing attached one meaning, we in reading quite another” (History of the English Bible, p. 118). In the preface to his 1833 Bible, Noah Webster noted that some “words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas” (p. iii). Webster added: “Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original
languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God” (Ibid.).

 

Ah yes - 12th grade.

My four favorite years of High School!


Ed

 

Present one-volume English dictionaries may not give the meaning of how the word was actually used in the 1500's and 1600's. They may only give present meanings that may mislead the reader.

If the matter was as simple as you suggest, perhaps you can explain why different KJV-only sources define some words in the KJV differently. For example, one KJV-only source says that "bravery" at Isaiah 3:18 means "the condition of possessing the qualitites of bold courage" while another KJV-only source says that it means "beauty." One KJV-only source defines "coney" in the KJV as "rabbit" while another KJV-only source indicates that it was a "hyrax" [not a rabbit].

 

A.F.'s reaction to the above was to dismiss it with the rash statement :"You can't actually believe that rubbish!"

John McWhorter wrote a book first published in 2001 called The Power Of Babel. In chapter one he says the following:

Yet because we can usually get Shakespeare's basic meaning, the language is "English" to us, and the magnificence of the prose, though somewhat obscure to us without training, discourages us from considering "translating" it for modern audiences as we do The Canterbury Tales or Beowulf, because to do so would smack of defacing masterworks. Ironically, the continuum nature of language change in this case has it that foreigners have the privilege of being able to take in Shakespeare as easily as we process Shaw. Any translation inherently compromises the original; thus a translator can translate Shakespeare into the modern stage of the translator's language, since translating it into that language as it existed five hundred years ago would entail the same degree of compromise of the original in any case... in whichever of these languages you might be familiar with, the language is more readily processible to the modern speaker of that language than the English is to a native English speaker...

(Pages 38,39)

 

Thus the rationalization of with every new translation of God's Word, more compromises are made of the original. Which is why I never put my trust in the MVs like the trust I have in the KJV.

Good post Rippon. Thank you. :godisgood:

 

The KJV IS a translation. Later English translations are not translations of the English.

 

Stefan already said this, but it bears repeating. All translations compromise the original. The KJV is not the original. Modern versions are not retranslations of the KJV. The KJV itself was a retranslation going through a layer of several translation or revision grids.

So the very reason you trust your KJV is misplaced.

 

No it is not misplaced and that is most offensive sir.

 

Did not say it wasn't, friend.

 

Wait a minute. You had agreed that with any translation compromises are made of the original. This has bearing on the KJV since it is a translation and is subject to said compromises. But, you seem to think that the KJV is immune to having any distortions -- only the modern versions are likely to have greater compromises. You are being illogiocal. Why do you assume that modern versions automatically involve more compromises with the original than does the KJV? The KJV effort was a human endeavour. The same applies to modern versions.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the KJV involved compromises with the original? If you believe that it stands unique among all translations as having no compromise issues whatsoever -- please tell us why you think so.

As I said before, you have a misplaced trust in your KJV if it's based on the faulty reasoning you have expressed.

 

I've always heard that it was written on a 12th grade reading level according to modern understanding of language. So, I voted for 11th grade reading level.

 

It is not misplaced trust and I will continue to dislike that statement. I believe that God is able to preserve His Word. The fact that the KJV has endured for 4 centuries is proof that He can. So no I have not misplaced any trust, nor am I in any way stating that you have. So cease and desist already.

 

Dislike it all you want. The basis of your trust in the KJV still stands as misplaced.

Do you believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the Anglican Version? If so you are a KJVO adherent.

Jerome's Vulgate has been around a lot longer. Yet it too has many mistakes in it. You have to do a lot more to support your contention that the KJV is an example of God's perfectly preserved word. Does the KJV text say anything about its own particular text being perfectly preserved? Of course not.

On the contrary -- you have indeed.

No can do.