From 1916 Regarding The KJV

[Rippon]

The following is from August Franz Otto Pieper (1852-1931). He was a Lutheran scholar. He was raised in Germany and then became an American later in life.

"You cannot read a single page,even a single column in the King James Version...without bumping up against words and phrases that are unenglish,artificial,unclear,and difficult. The shortcomings of the English Bible are primarily two. For the most part,it translates the idioms and expressions of the original languages too literally,often literalistically,and this makes it difficult,if not incomprehensible,for the reader. And secondly,the English Bible too often lacks the vitality,the freshness and power of the original Hebrew and Greek."

Pieper goes on to say that "words and expressions no longer in common use (cf.the jaw-breaker 'but nourisheth and cherisheth it,' Eph.5) The English pastor preaches in a language different from his Bible."

 

[Logos1560]

The following is from August Franz Otto Pieper (1852-1931).

What was the name of his book that had those quotations? Do you have the page numbers for the quotations?

 

[Baptist4life]

The following is from August Franz Otto Pieper (1852-1931). He was a Lutheran scholar. He was raised in Germany and then became an American later in life.

"You cannot read a single page,even a single column in the King James Version...without bumping up against words and phrases that are unenglish,artificial,unclear,and difficult. The shortcomings of the English Bible are primarily two. For the most part,it translates the idioms and expressions of the original languages too literally,often literalistically,and this makes it difficult,if not incomprehensible,for the reader. And secondly,the English Bible too often lacks the vitality,the freshness and power of the original Hebrew and Greek."

Pieper goes on to say that "words and expressions no longer in common use (cf.the jaw-breaker 'but nourisheth and cherisheth it,' Eph.5) The English pastor preaches in a language different from his Bible."

Yet people on this forum say that the KJV is never degraded.What, then, is the above? For what purpose was it posted? :BangHead:

 

[Rippon]

Yet people on this forum say that the KJV is never degraded.What, then, is the above? For what purpose was it posted?

You think the quoted material demeans the KJV? Do you honestly mean to say that you object to everything he said way back almost 96 years ago?

 

[Baptist4life]

What I'd like to know is your reason for posting it. If it's something someone wrote "way back almost 96 years ago", why did you feel the need to post it here?

 

[Rippon]

What I'd like to know is your reason for posting it.

Because it is informative B4L. The language of the KJV has been difficult for centuries now. I think Franklin had a piece a while back from 1816 or or so speaking of the difficulty of the language.

Even the Puritan John Owen had to explain to his readers in the 17th century that the word quicken in the KJV had nothing to do with speed.

The antiquity of the language has been a hindrance for quite some time.

 

[Rippon]

What I'd like to know is your reason for posting it. If it's something someone wrote "way back almost 96 years ago", why did you feel the need to post it here?

LOL! I just looked at your edited statement. Why would it seem so unusual to post something from nearly a century ago? It's not as if we post only recent things. Pss... I have a secret for you. The KJV is a lot older than 96 years. Verses from that version are posted on the BB. Is that a problem?

 

[Rippon]

What was the name of his book that had those quotations? Do you have the page numbers for the quotations?

The English Bible

AUGUST O. W. PIEPER

(From “Our Transition into English,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 100, No. 2 [Spring 2003], pp. 92-93; a translation of “Unser Übergang ins Englische,” Theologische Quartalschrift, Vols. 14-15 [1918-19].)
​

 

[Baptist4life]

You're the one who brought up the 96 years thing, not me. I'm beginning to think I must have superior intelligence because I've been using the KJV my whole life and understand it quite well. Seems everyone else thinks it's impossible to understand! :tongue3:

 

[go2church]

funny stuff there

 

[Jerome]

Even the Puritan John Owen had to explain to his readers in the 17th century that the word quicken in the KJV had nothing to do with speed.

Indeed he did:

John Gill, Exercitations on the epistle to the Hebrews, concerning the priesthood of Christ [1674]:

"Ours Quick; improperly; for that Word doth more ordinarily signify speedy than living; and I doubt not but many are deceived in this Place through the Ambiguity of that Word."


Of course in his own writings Owen uses the word quick in the exact same way as the KJB does.

Owen doesn't interrupt his own prose, however, to give a schoolmarm lecture to himself on how oh so "improper", tsk tsk, his own use of the word is.

 

[marke]

The following is from August Franz Otto Pieper (1852-1931). He was a Lutheran scholar. He was raised in Germany and then became an American later in life.

"You cannot read a single page,even a single column in the King James Version...without bumping up against words and phrases that are unenglish,artificial,unclear,and difficult. The shortcomings of the English Bible are primarily two. For the most part,it translates the idioms and expressions of the original languages too literally,often literalistically,and this makes it difficult,if not incomprehensible,for the reader. And secondly,the English Bible too often lacks the vitality,the freshness and power of the original Hebrew and Greek."

Pieper goes on to say that "words and expressions no longer in common use (cf.the jaw-breaker 'but nourisheth and cherisheth it,' Eph.5) The English pastor preaches in a language different from his Bible."

Many are the critics of God's word. Wescott and Hort had the same objection and undertook not only to upgrade or modernize the wording, but they also took it upon themselves to go through the whole of the NT slashing and burning at will, adding words, taking phrases out, changing meanings, etc. The work they did became the 'acceptable' practice of modern textual critics of fashioning the word of God as they see fit, ancient records and other perspectives notwithstanding. They should have studied the last page of the Book before they began at the first page dismantling it at will, bringing on themselves the sure and certain curse of God.

 

[Rippon]

You're the one who brought up the 96 years thing, not me.

On 11/20/08 you said the following:"I believe it was widely used until the mid-60's and NNE was complaining about understanding it back then."

You were wrong then,and now. I have demonstrated that the KJV language has been hard to understand for hundreds of years. Franklin, Logos and others have proven the same thing.

I'm beginning to think I must have superior intelligence because I've been using the KJV my whole life and understand it quite well. Seems everyone else thinks it's impossible to understand! :tongue3:

You are only deceiving yourself. I gave you a test a while back on the thread A Challenge For Some. Remember? I scored you at 65.45%. Franklin scored you a little higher at 73.15%.

Your "superior intelligence" failed you then. You only demonstrated mild or fair intelligence based on the KJV test. Don't brag too much B4L. Remmember what the KJV says about what preceeds a fall.

 

[Baptist4life]

My goodness. I wasn't bragging, it was a joke. I always seem to forget that you are never wrong. Sorry.

 

[Rippon]

Many are the critics of God's word.

God's Word is not equal to an early 17th century translation alone.and Pieper was saying very valid,reasonable things about the KJ Version.

Wescott and Hort had the same objection and undertook

NT slashing and burning at will,

dismantling it at will,

You really need to calm down. You need to get a grip and read more about issues before going on your own slashn'burn routine. You are bring up things that are not only false but very dishonoring. Go start a thread somewhere else. Don't dirty the carpets here.

 

[Winman]

Why does everybody want to "dumb down" the Bible? Sure, there are archaic words, but if a person is serious about learning the scriptures they will study. There are many resources available today at the touch of a mouse.

I will relate it to a musical instrument. I have been playing guitar for nearly 40 years, and while I am not the greatest, I can play on a professional level and have many times. Over the years I have run into many "wannabees". I have had many folks ask me for lessons. Folks want it to be easy, they want to learn quick. There are companies that promise to teach you guitar or piano in one week. IT CAN'T BE DONE. If you want to play an instrument well, you must put in many thousands of hours of study and practice.

The scriptures are no different, we need to study. This takes hard work and persistence. If the scriptures were so simple a small child could read them, you would read the book through once and put it down. No one appreciates what is simple and easy.

If you really could learn to play an instrument in one week, it would not hold your interest, it would be no more thrilling or challenging than making a paper airplane. Nobody is going to pay to see that. People pay to see professional musicians because they know it is difficult and requires a lifetime of study.

I don't know about you, but I love to listen to preachers who really know the Word of God. My pastor is very knowledgeable and teaches Bible college. I am always learning from him and it is always exciting.

Nothing worthwhile comes easy. "Wannabees" want things easy, they practice guitar two weeks, then put it in the closet when they discover how difficult it is. That's OK, I have picked up some great bargains from these guys when they finally sell that guitar.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Was the KJV a dumb-down of the Wycliffe New Testament?

 

[Rippon]

Why does everybody want to "dumb down" the Bible? Sure, there are archaic words, but if a person is serious about learning the scriptures they will study.

It is insulting and also quite short-sighted on your part to make those kind of remarks.

Why should someone have to learn English words and phrases several centuries of age when there are words and phrases that can be used in today's language --be it English or Chinese.

Your whole argument is bogus. Reading and studying in a modern language Bible still requires study --but not the extra hoops you think qualifies as "study."

 

[franklinmonroe]

... they also took it upon themselves to go through the whole of the NT slashing and burning at will, adding words, taking phrases out, changing meanings, etc. ...

Wescott and Hort concerned themselves primarily with the collation of ancient Greek manuscripts, not the editing of an English translation.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... but if a person is serious about learning the scriptures they will study. There are many resources available today at the touch of a mouse. ...

When did you start studying the languages of the Scriptures?