Why KJV? #2: The KJ translators employed a method of verbal equivalence.

Alan Gross · Feb 7, 2023

from: Why I Use The KJV by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor - Now In Glory

2.) The KJ translators employed a method of verbal equivalence (a word-for-word translation) rather than the method of paraphrasing of dynamic equivalent (a meaning for meaning).

The idea of the KJ translators was to give us what the Bible writers really wrote instead of what some committee of liberal scholars thought they wrote.

This practice was not followed by modern-day translators.

The KJ translators believed every word placed in the original text was exactly as God intended.

Their regard for verbal inspiration is reflected in the use of italics in translations wherever words were added in English, which was not in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

This practice has not been followed by modern versions.

Personally, I look upon most modern versions (especially the New Testament) as new Bible versions. I say this because a translation of the Bible to be true to its name must be the writing down of the message into another language without changing its meaning.

The natural man cannot understand the things of God (I Corinthians 2:14), and he cannot be trusted to put God's thoughts into correct English.

Conan · Feb 8, 2023

Alan Gross said: ↑

from: Why I Use The KJV by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor - Now In Glory

2.) The KJ translators employed a method of verbal equivalence (a word-for-word translation) rather than the method of paraphrasing of dynamic equivalent (a meaning for meaning).

The idea of the KJ translators was to give us what the Bible writers really wrote instead of what some committee of liberal scholars thought they wrote.
Click to expand...

Not so. The 1611 KJV was a revision of the Bishops Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible, which was a revision of Matthews Bible, which was a revision of William Tyndales and Miles Coverdales translations. The KJV translators also heavily relied on the Geneva Bible and even the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. As you can see the vast majority of the KJV was translated by others. The KJV translators followed the methods and skills of others.

This practice was not followed by modern-day translators.

The KJ translators believed every word placed in the original text was exactly as God intended.
Click to expand...

Not so. The original 1611 KJV translators used marginal notes for many reasons, including alternative readings where there is great doubt. Check out what the KJV translators said in their preface to the 1611 Bible.

"
Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each
Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point"

The Translators to the Reader

Their regard for verbal inspiration is reflected in the use of italics in translations wherever words were added in English, which was not in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

This practice has not been followed by modern versions.
Click to expand...

Changes in the King James version

§ 1. ITALICIZED WORDS OR PHRASES
The King James version was originally printed in the type style known as "black letter," which has the following appearance:

Words of the translation which were supplied to make the sense clear, but which were not represented in the Greek text used by the translators, were often set in small "roman" type:

In later editions, the ordinary text was set in roman type, with the supplied words in italics:

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled.

This typographical feature was not employed very consistently in the 1611 edition; in many places the supplied words are not indicated as one might expect. This inconsistency was probably the fault of the printer's compositors, who very often modified even the spelling of words in order to lengthen or shorten a line of type.

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found. The following is a complete list of such cases
Changes in the King James version

Personally, I look upon most modern versions (especially the New Testament) as new Bible versions. I say this because a translation of the Bible to be true to its name must be the writing down of the message into another language without changing its meaning.

The natural man cannot understand the things of God (I Corinthians 2:14), and he cannot be trusted to put God's thoughts into correct English.
Click to expand...

Well, he did say most translations. But he did not say all I notice.

JonC · Feb 8, 2023

Alan Gross said: ↑

from: Why I Use The KJV by Elder Milburn Cockrell - Sovereign Grace Landmark Baptist Pastor - Now In Glory

2.) The KJ translators employed a method of verbal equivalence (a word-for-word translation) rather than the method of paraphrasing of dynamic equivalent (a meaning for meaning).

The idea of the KJ translators was to give us what the Bible writers really wrote instead of what some committee of liberal scholars thought they wrote.

This practice was not followed by modern-day translators.

The KJ translators believed every word placed in the original text was exactly as God intended.

Their regard for verbal inspiration is reflected in the use of italics in translations wherever words were added in English, which was not in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

This practice has not been followed by modern versions.

Personally, I look upon most modern versions (especially the New Testament) as new Bible versions. I say this because a translation of the Bible to be true to its name must be the writing down of the message into another language without changing its meaning.

The natural man cannot understand the things of God (I Corinthians 2:14), and he cannot be trusted to put God's thoughts into correct English.
Click to expand...

There are several issues with Mr. Cockrell's article.

I'll address some now.

First, Mr. Cockrell implies that the KJV was not authored by committee. Not only was the KJV written by a committee of translators but it was subject to the criteria set by the Church of England (essentially a Catholic Church with England as a "pope").

Second, many modern versions employ a "word for word" translation of the source text. The KJV isn't actually the best at translating "word for word", but it preserves much of the literary style that is impossible in "word for word" translations.

The NASB, for example, does a much better job at a "word for word" translation of its source than does the KJV. But this makes the NASB an awkward reading at times.

Third, the KJV relied more on Catholic translations than it did on the original Greek and Hebrew. If in doubt, ask yourself how Latin ended up in the KJV translation of the OT (hint - Jerome's translation).

Fourth, the NKJV uses the same text and method as the KJV. A benefit is the NKJV corrects a few translation errors made in the KJV (like introducing Latin into the OT).

Why KJV? #2: The KJ translators employed a method of verbal equivalence.

Alan Gross Well-Known Member

Conan Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Useful Searches

Why KJV? #2: The KJ translators employed a method of verbal equivalence.

Alan Gross Well-Known Member

Conan Well-Known Member

JonC Moderator Moderator

JonC Moderator
Moderator