Featured The Key to the KJV-Only Conundrum

If Isrealis don't an need updated Hebrew OT, then they wouldn't need an updated Hebrew NT translation.

 

Thank you for the intel about the Chinese & Japanese languages.

The point I was trying to make about Wycliffe's Bible is that it was in the style of English in use at the time it was made. I doubt very many the British of that time could read the few Scriptural mss. written in the languages in use at the time of William the Conqueror. (Many more could read the Latin Vulgate, however, IF they could see a copy. The RCC tried to prevent the common people from having access to a written Bible.)

Having no REAL EVIDENCE to support their myth, the KJVOs are constantly inventing new excuses in their attempts to justify it. However, they all fall flat on their snoots.

And yet another hypocrisy of the KJVOs - while they go about proclaiming "1611", the version they almost all support is the 1769 Blayney's Edition. We don't see them supporting the AV 1611 itself too often! So, we can disregard their excuse about "Bible revisions" given the many differences between the AV 1611 & the Blayney's Edition.

 

A few points.There were two so-called Wycliffe translations. The earlier one was slavishly literal in trying to match up with the Latin Vulgate. It came out around the time of John Wycliffe's death. Nicholas of Herford is usually credited with the work.

The second one was more idiomatic. It was "published" abroad between 1388 and 1394 (10 years after Wycliffe's death). John Purvey or John Trevisa are variously credited with the work.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica the period of 1250 to 1400 is called Central Middle English. Others called this stage Standard Middle English.

The KJV and Shakespeare's works were produced in the latter stage of Early Modern English.

 

As I pointed out in my previous post --the second version of the Wycliffe translation was less difficult than the first. In general, most people when referencing "The Wycliffe Bible" are speaking of the more common second one.

No, you are mistaken. Latin died out in Britain around the 5th century. The common person of that time could neither write or read Latin. It was the language of the Academy.

 

That makes no sense. The only reason new translations need to be periodically made is because languages change. A changed language also impedes reading things originally written in that native language.

Most Judean Jews in Jesus' day would have been unable to read the books of Moses, as Moses wrote them, let alone modern Israeli Jews and the modern synthetic Hebrew they use.

 

Again, it wasn't difficult for the English of that time, if they could read their own language. The difficulty lay in the scarcity of Wycliffe's bible, as every copy was hand-written. There were many people who could hand-write copies of the Latin Vulgate.

And quite a few Europeans, including a fair number of British, could read it. Latin was somewhat of a "lingua franca" as it was by then a 'dead' language, unchanging. Look at the prevalence of Latin names of that general time. More than oine commoner learned to read Latin in imitation of the "academics". And the fact it was READ IN CHURCH proves many British understood at least some spoken Latin.

 

The literacy rate from 1475 to 1550 was under 20%. It steadily improved to around 35% in 1600. The average person in England would not have been able to read English, much less Latin.

I'll quote from McGraths' book In The Beginning.

"An eyewitness account of the consecration of the bishop of Durham in 1318 discloses the remarkable fact that the new bishop could not even read the Latin words he was required to repeat during the service. (p.29)

"The academic world was thus the last bastion of Latin in England, in that the Church of England ceased to use this language to any significant extent by the 1540s." (p.35)

Echoing the thoughts of Martin Luther, McGrath says : "And why did the Bible have to be locked away from the people, imprisoned in the fetters of a dead language that only a charmed circle could read?"(p.51)

"Erasmus produced a new Latin translation of the New Testament in 1516, based on the original Greek texts. That was useful, in Luther's view. But most laity could not read this learned language. What they needed was the New Testament to be translated accurately into the language they used in their everyday lives." (p. 51)

 

Latin was not the language used in Protestant churches in the 1520s and beyond.

Calvin and other churchmen wrote in Latin, but it was not used in church services.

 

The Church hasn't updated Hebrew OT and Greek NT because these are dead languages to the Church (without regard for modern Greek language Bibles for modern Greeks).

The Masoretic text was produced using Hebrew of ca. 1000 AD. In English, we're updating translations made just a few decades ago, e.g. NIV 1984 -> 2011. The NIV translators will tell you part of the need for a new translation is language changes in just a few decades.

Translators behind new translations also cite better understanding of biblical Hebrew. Jews don't change the modern Hebrew language to better match new understanding of biblical Hebrew, so therefor they should change the Hebrew words in their Hebrew Bibles.

Modern translators also want to change what the Bible says to better fit modern non-biblical values. In places, the NIV2011 changes "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" and changes "jews" to "jewish leaders". Why wouldn't Jews likewise want changed bibles to match their non-biblical beliefs?

Maybe Jews hold on to the Masoretic like a KJVO fetish? No. KJVO people hold the Bible in very hard regard. Most Jews, being Liberals and Atheists, consider the Masoretic to be just a step above toilet paper (as far as content goes) -- why would they have any qualms about the NIV2011 treatment to the Masoretic? Maybe Jews outside of the Orthodox sect care so little about the Old Testament (Tanakh) that they don't care about having a version easily read by modern Jews? Even for the Orthodox, the OT is second fiddle to the Talmud. Maybe it's all about the Masoretic being an icon, and what is says doesn't really matter to Jews.

Here's an article about a modern Hebrew version. Drora Halevy, national supervisor of Bible studies at the Ministry of Education, claims: “This translation cuts out the heart of the Bible. It reduces the Bible to just another book. In the Bible, form and content are bound together. The translation kills it.” Sounds like a KJVO fetish, with the ironic twist of the fetishist not really caring what the OT says.

 

The Hebrew language did change over time (including the adoption of a foreign alphabet), while new books were being added to the Bible. But, the Masoretic is written in consistent Hebrew. We know Hebrew has changed over time. Just most of the evidence has disappeared with time (the oldest generations of Hebrew manuscripts don't exist. Very little predating the Masoretic). Some differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic reflect changes in Hebrew over time. The article I linked to demonstrates change in Hebrew over time.

I'd be a KJVO guy, if the KJVO was the original language. English hasn't changed so much as to justify a modern translation of the KJV (if we were translating the KJV, and not Hebrew/Greek texts). But, the vast majority of English speakers (including many KJVO people) need a modern Bible translation, at least as a supplement, as they have so much trouble understanding the KJV (and, sometimes they think they understand it, when they don't).

 

It's just an observable fact. The NIV team consulted the Collins Bank of English Words --(4.4 billion) and used that to determine what was most commonly used. It's just common sense.

You just threw an awfully huge net there Smyth. Just what "non-biblical values" are you speaking of specifically?

Many translations use "brothers and sisters" instead of "brothers" because it more accurately reflects the original to the modern audience. The ESV does use that phraseology in their text, but they have over 100 footnotes basically saying that brothers and sisters is fully acceptable.

Regarding the NIV's use of "Jewish leaders"" instead of "the Jews" --it is not just the NIV which uses that construction. Look at John 1:19;5:10;15,16;7:1,13 and 9:22. The CEB,ISV,NET and NLT all use "Jewish leaders" or "Jewish authorities."

 

If many British didn't know at least SOME spoken Latin, how would they know what the priest was reading them outta the Bible? I don't believe the readers were translating as they read, as the last thing the RCC wanted was a Bible in the local current language. And it's likely more than one British learned to read Latin on his/her own without broadcasting the news for fear of the RCC.

 

That's why there should be Hebrew language updates for Hebrew speakers, modern languages change quickly. (But, still, the NIV update is too soon for the reason of changing language. In reality, the new generation of owners of the NIV just wanted to inject some modern unchristian teachings into the popular NIV, hence the major update).

Don't attempt to rationalize changing the text, any change, even if I agreed that the text means that. But, God is not a feminist. Replacing "brothers" with "brother and sisters" is rebellion against God and the order he has designed, of a man being the head of the woman.

Any Bible translator who thinks a verse means something other than what it literally says should keep his opinion to the footnotes.

The CEB, ISV, NET, and NLT are unfaithful translations. Christians should stick to translations like th NKJV, ESV, NASB, and ASV.

 

You have to be clear. Are you speaking of Roman Catholicism? Are you speaking of 1400-1600?
What time period and what communion?

A lot of R.C. Priests could not understand Latin --they fumbled around. The common people knew even less. It was a mess. (Pardon me Dr. S.)