How are so-called "toned down" or "less offensive" renderings determined?

[Logos1560]

I use KJV primarily.

My primary reason I use it is I find its language to be more expressive simply because our English language had better depth in the past. There's better words that express ideas better in other words.

I also like that it's not a modern translation so I don't have to worry about if it's been "toned down" or "converted" to be "less offensive".

How is it objectively determined whether English renderings can justly be considered "toned down" or "less offensive"? If a rendering is an acceptable and accurate rendering of an original-language word of Scripture, should it be dismissed or be misrepresented as being "toned down"? Would a personal preference for one rendering be a just reason to label another rendering as being "toned down" or "converted" to be "less offensive"?

Are the same exact measures/standards applied to renderings in the KJV that were changed from those in pre-1611 English Bibles?

For example, were the KJV's renderings in place of "tyrant" and "tyranny" in pre-1611 English Bibles "toned down" or "less offensive" considering King James' divine-right-of-kings view?

Was the KJV's rendering "church" instead of "congregation" in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's Bibles "less offensive" to the Church of England doctrinal views?

Was the KJV's rendering "charity" in place of Tyndale's rendering "love" "less offensive" or "toned down"?

 

[alexander284]

Seven good questions to ponder.

 

[Logos1560]

In my opinion, the negative accusation of "toned down" renderings in modern translations is often applied very subjectively and inconsistently. That is one reason for my questions suggesting how a more consistent application of this claimed measure/standard might apply in at least some cases to the KJV.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

How is it objectively determined whether English renderings can justly be considered "toned down" or "less offensive"? If a rendering is an acceptable and accurate rendering of an original-language word of Scripture, should it be dismissed or be misrepresented as being "toned down"? Would a personal preference for one rendering be a just reason to label another rendering as being "toned down" or "converted" to be "less offensive"?

Are the same exact measures/standards applied to renderings in the KJV that were changed from those in pre-1611 English Bibles?

For example, were the KJV's renderings in place of "tyrant" and "tyranny" in pre-1611 English Bibles "toned down" or "less offensive" considering King James' divine-right-of-kings view?

Was the KJV's rendering "church" instead of "congregation" in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's Bibles "less offensive" to the Church of England doctrinal views?

Was the KJV's rendering "charity" in place of Tyndale's rendering "love" "less offensive" or "toned down"?

Toned down would refer to things adhering to the modern Woke nonsense of the past 20 years. Things like gender-neutral Bibles, affirming Bibles, Politically Correct Bibles or any other things designed to cut away at God's Word to make us feel better about our sin.

For example, if a modern version modified 1 Corinthians 6:9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" and removed the word "effeminate" or "fornicators" or "abusers of themselves with mankind" then that would be toned down.

Your examples given aren't what I'm meaning by "toned down". Those are all more stylistic than substantive.

I don't have time to check each of the new Bible translations to see if some kooky confused gender studies professor edited it, so by sticking with the KJV and a few other versions I don't even have to worry about it.

 

[Logos1560]

I don't have time to check each of the new Bible translations to see if some kooky confused gender studies professor edited it, so by sticking with the KJV and a few other versions I don't even have to worry about it.

You took the time to make a broad-sweeping generalization and accusation (seemingly against all modern translations) without providing any examples and evidence to support it. Now you indicate that you have a few unidentified exceptions to your earlier broad-sweeping generalization.

How would it be wise and sound to judge and condemn most present English Bible translations without examining or reading them?

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

You took the time to make a broad-sweeping generalization and accusation (seemingly against all modern translations) without providing any examples and evidence to support it. Now you indicate that you have a few unidentified exceptions to your earlier broad-sweeping generalization.

I don't have time to provide examples or evidences. In the 1 example I provided you can find the lack of the word "effeminate" in the NIV. That is one reason I don't use the NIV.

How would it be wise and sound to judge and condemn most present English Bible translations without examining or reading them?

Because the spirit of the age seeks to produce corrupted Bibles, and again, I don't have the time to sift through all the modern versions and find which ones are pearls and which ones are turds.

And, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The KJV was used for centuries, and was tried and tested by my Christian ancestors for hundreds of years. If it worked for them, it'll work for me.

 

[alexander284]

I don't have time to provide examples or evidences. In the 1 example I provided you can find the lack of the word "effeminate" in the NIV. That is one reason I don't use the NIV.


Because the spirit of the age seeks to produce corrupted Bibles, and again, I don't have the time to sift through all the modern versions and find which ones are pearls and which ones are turds.

And, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The KJV was used for centuries, and was tried and tested by my Christian ancestors for hundreds of years. If it worked for them, it'll work for me.

Yes, if I had demanded proof, evidence, facts, examples, etc., before believing anything, I wouldn't be a Christian. I'd be an atheist.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I don't have time to provide examples or evidences. In the 1 example I provided you can find the lack of the word "effeminate" in the NIV. That is one reason I don't use the NIV.

Here are some translations that don't use your favorite word :

NKJV, NET, LEB, WEB, CSB, CEB, ESV and Mounce --- among others.

You make a lot more sense in the political and current events forums here.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Here are some translations that don't use your favorite word :

NKJV, NET, LEB, WEB, CSB, CEB, ESV and Mounce --- among others.

Great. Thank you for pointing out versions that have a weaker translation of that verse. I wouldn't want my favorite word to be left out.