Is the KJV a literal, word-for-word English Bible translation?

[Logos1560]

It is sometimes suggested that the KJV is a literal, word-for-word Bible translation. The KJV does not actually give a literal rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture. The KJV omits giving any English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture. The KJV does not preserve each and every original-language word of Scripture by giving an English rendering for each and every one. KJV-only advocates will condemn other English Bibles on the basis of their demands for word-for-word translating, but they do not apply the same measures/standards to the KJV itself.

In some places where the Hebrew Masoretic Text has a Hebrew noun meaning hand in English, the KJV does not give the English rendering "hand" for it in the verse. In their 1611 marginal note at 2 Chronicles 17:15, the KJV translators gave a literal, word-for-word rendering.

2 Chronicles 17:15 [1611 margin—“Heb at his hand”]
And next to him [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next to his hand [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
And next to him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 17:16 [see also 2 Chron. 17:15, 17:18, 31:15]
And by his side [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next him [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 17:18
And by his side [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next him [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 29:25 [1611 margin—"Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]
through the hand of the Prophets [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his prophets [1611 KJV]
by the hand of His prophets [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]

2 Chronicles 31:15 [see also 2 Chron. 17:15, 17:16, 17:18]
And under him [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And under his hand [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And by his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]
And under him [NKJV]

 

[John of Japan]

It is sometimes suggested that the KJV is a literal, word-for-word Bible translation. The KJV does not actually give a literal rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture. The KJV omits giving any English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture. The KJV does not preserve each and every original-language word of Scripture by giving an English rendering for each and every one. KJV-only advocates will condemn other English Bibles on the basis of their demands for word-for-word translating, but they do not apply the same measures/standards to the KJV itself.

The KJV is definitely a word-for-word translation by my definition, though some have a more radical definition wherein it is called "an extreme form of literal translation in which a TL ("target language"). I have compared the entire NT to the Greek. But the usual definition of "word-for-word" is not necessarily the equivalent of Young's Literal Version. So it just depends on how you define "word-for-word

In some places where the Hebrew Masoretic Text has a Hebrew noun meaning hand in English, the KJV does not give the English rendering "hand" for it in the verse. In their 1611 marginal note at 2 Chronicles 17:15, the KJV translators gave a literal, word-for-word rendering.

2 Chronicles 17:15 [1611 margin—“Heb at his hand”]
And next to him [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next to his hand [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
And next to him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 17:16 [see also 2 Chron. 17:15, 17:18, 31:15]
And by his side [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next him [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 17:18
And by his side [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next him [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 29:25 [1611 margin—"Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]
through the hand of the Prophets [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his prophets [1611 KJV]
by the hand of His prophets [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]

2 Chronicles 31:15 [see also 2 Chron. 17:15, 17:16, 17:18]
And under him [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And under his hand [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And by his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]
And under him [NKJV]

What is missing in your post is the fact that "at his hand" is a Hebrew idiom. An idiom is "Any expression peculiar to a language, conveying a distinct meaning, not necessarily explicable by, occasionally even contrary to, the general accepted grammatical rules" (Dictionary of Linguistics, Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, p. 95).

Most translators will not translate an idiom literally unless the word or phrase in the target language (TL) has the exact same meaning as the original meaning, which is somewhat rare. We have an English idiom similar to this Hebrew idiom: "at hand." So it's not that much of a problem to translated the idiom literally, though I consider those versions you quote which did not translate the idiom literally to be, just the same, literal translations.

 

[Rye]

What are you thoughts about the Granville Sharp rule? This was a later development of Greek scholarship and provides more clarity to the deity of Christ.

Titus 2:13
KJV - Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
NKJV - looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:1
KJV - Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
NKJV - Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

 

[Logos1560]

. So it just depends on how you define "word-for-word

I was using the term "word-for-word" in the sense that many KJV-only authors use it in order to see whether they apply their own stated measure/standard consistently and justly.

H. D. Williams gave the following definition of word-for-word translating: “rendering a word or words in a receptor language the same as in a source-language” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. xx). H. D. Williams asserted: “Literal word-for-word translating is translating words in the source language for words in the receptor language so far as the syntax of the receptor-language will allow” (p. 4). Bob Steward declared: “Translation work is designed to bring the exact equivalent from the sender language to the receptor language” (Why Not the NKJV, p. 6). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “KJV formal-equivalence translation is a principle vital to this preservation chain, the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic basis being followed as closely as possible, while the context and meaning are followed to provide an exact English equivalent” (Evidence, p. 77). Troy Clark contended: “The entire King James Bible has been translated from the original books the whole way by formal (verbal) equivalency. That is, each word being translated into the new language must be the same, literal word being translated from. Word equals Word” (Perfect Bible, p. 39). Troy Clark claimed: “God wants every word equally preserved” (p. 45). Doug Stauffer asserted: “In order for a translation to be authoritative, strict adherence to the words of the Holy Spirit must be used. Therefore, a strict adherence to a word-for-word translation must be followed” (One Book Stands Alone, p. 253). James Rasbeary claimed that all seven English Bibles “translated word for word, which is called formal equivalency” (What’s Wrong with the Old Black Book, p. 91). James Rasbeary maintained that “the King James Bible is a word-for-word translation” (p. 183). Stephen Gentry claimed: “The King James Bible gives you an exact word-for-word translation” (God’s Word to Man, p. 4). Dennis Anderson asserted: “When the King James Bible was translated, forty-seven scholarly men took that which had been given by inspiration and translated it into English. That is Preservation” (The Flaming Torch, Summer, 1995, p. 6). Concerning the KJV, William Grady referred to “its word-for-word translation” (Given by Inspiration, p. 106). Thomas Strouse maintained that “the KJV is a word for word, ‘Static Equivalent’ translation” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 22). Dennis Corle contended that “somewhere there must be an every word and every jot and tittle Bible,” which he suggested is the KJV (God’s Inspired Book, p. 11). David W. Daniels asserted: “We need a literal Bible, with only what God said, nothing added, nothing taken away” (51 Reasons, p. 38). R. B. Ouellette claimed that the KJV “is a literal translation of the correct and pure Greek and Hebrew texts” (A More Sure Word, p. 8). E. L. Bynum asserted: “The King James Version is a word for word translation from the Hebrew and the Greek” (In Defense, p. 48). Gail Riplinger maintained that the KJV is a “word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 270). Gail Riplinger also contended that the KJV has “literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text” and claimed that it shows “all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288). Riplinger claimed that “the KJV is the only English formal equivalency translation of the pure Greek and Hebrew Bible” (p. 90). Ed DeVries declared: “Formal Equivalence demands that if it is a verb in the Greek or Hebrew, it must be a verb in the English. If it is a noun in the Greek or Hebrew it must be a noun in the English and so forth” (Divinely Inspired, p. 43). Steve Woods maintained that “they [the KJV translators] not only translated ‘word for word’ but they also translated ‘form for form’” and that “verbs were translated as verbs, nouns for nouns, adjectives for adjectives, and so on” (King’s Bible, p. 491).

Dennis Kwok claimed: “The translators of the KJB appointed by King James used the Verbal Equivalence method, word for word, as originally given by God” (VPP, p. 91). Dennis Kwok declared: “Every noun, adjective, preposition, participle, and so on in the Hebrew and Greek text is brought into English in the same way. That includes the structure and form as well” (p. 80). David H. Sorenson asserted: “The Traditional Text and the King James Version reflect the purified verbal transmission of God’s very words to this hour. Though the King James Version as a translation is not inspired, verbal preservation has carried the results of inspiration through to this hour in the King James Version. Those results are inerrancy and infallibility” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 211). Christopher Myers wrote: “The English King James Version (KJV) was translated from the Received Hebrew and Greek text, preserving every jot and tittle of the Word of God” (Riddle, Why I Preach, p. 189). David Loughran asserted that “a translator must, therefore, translate God’s words—all of them” and that “the King James Version translators employed a ‘word for word’ translation technique” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 81). Gary Miller claimed that the KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJV Bible, p. 18). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 31). Jack Hyles claimed: “Every single word of God has been preserved in the King James Bible, the only Bible” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 97). Jack McElroy asserted: “You can find all of his preserved, inerrant words in the King James Bible” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 423). Jack McElroy also declared: “King James Only folks believe that the Lord himself has provided them with a book that contains ALL of his words and ONLY his words WITHOUT ERROR” (p. 332).

 

[John of Japan]

What are you thoughts about the Granville Sharp rule? This was a later development of Greek scholarship and provides more clarity to the deity of Christ.

Titus 2:13
KJV - Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
NKJV - looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:1
KJV - Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
NKJV - Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ

You are correct about the Granville Sharp rule and the deity of Christ. Good point! My son and I are team teaching a class in Pastoral Epistles (we both teach Greek also), and he mentioned the rule in class just today. However, Granville Sharp actually lived 1735-1813, so it's not a recent rule. So then, the KJV translators did know about the rule.

 

[John of Japan]

I was using the term "word-for-word" in the sense that many KJV-only authors use it in order to see whether they apply their own stated measure/standard consistently and justly.

H. D. Williams gave the following definition of word-for-word translating: “rendering a word or words in a receptor language the same as in a source-language” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. xx). H. D. Williams asserted: “Literal word-for-word translating is translating words in the source language for words in the receptor language so far as the syntax of the receptor-language will allow” (p. 4). Bob Steward declared: “Translation work is designed to bring the exact equivalent from the sender language to the receptor language” (Why Not the NKJV, p. 6). Lawrence Bednar wrote: “KJV formal-equivalence translation is a principle vital to this preservation chain, the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic basis being followed as closely as possible, while the context and meaning are followed to provide an exact English equivalent” (Evidence, p. 77). Troy Clark contended: “The entire King James Bible has been translated from the original books the whole way by formal (verbal) equivalency. That is, each word being translated into the new language must be the same, literal word being translated from. Word equals Word” (Perfect Bible, p. 39). Troy Clark claimed: “God wants every word equally preserved” (p. 45). Doug Stauffer asserted: “In order for a translation to be authoritative, strict adherence to the words of the Holy Spirit must be used. Therefore, a strict adherence to a word-for-word translation must be followed” (One Book Stands Alone, p. 253). James Rasbeary claimed that all seven English Bibles “translated word for word, which is called formal equivalency” (What’s Wrong with the Old Black Book, p. 91). James Rasbeary maintained that “the King James Bible is a word-for-word translation” (p. 183). Stephen Gentry claimed: “The King James Bible gives you an exact word-for-word translation” (God’s Word to Man, p. 4). Dennis Anderson asserted: “When the King James Bible was translated, forty-seven scholarly men took that which had been given by inspiration and translated it into English. That is Preservation” (The Flaming Torch, Summer, 1995, p. 6). Concerning the KJV, William Grady referred to “its word-for-word translation” (Given by Inspiration, p. 106). Thomas Strouse maintained that “the KJV is a word for word, ‘Static Equivalent’ translation” (Lord God Hath Spoken, p. 22). Dennis Corle contended that “somewhere there must be an every word and every jot and tittle Bible,” which he suggested is the KJV (God’s Inspired Book, p. 11). David W. Daniels asserted: “We need a literal Bible, with only what God said, nothing added, nothing taken away” (51 Reasons, p. 38). R. B. Ouellette claimed that the KJV “is a literal translation of the correct and pure Greek and Hebrew texts” (A More Sure Word, p. 8). E. L. Bynum asserted: “The King James Version is a word for word translation from the Hebrew and the Greek” (In Defense, p. 48). Gail Riplinger maintained that the KJV is a “word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 270). Gail Riplinger also contended that the KJV has “literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text” and claimed that it shows “all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288). Riplinger claimed that “the KJV is the only English formal equivalency translation of the pure Greek and Hebrew Bible” (p. 90). Ed DeVries declared: “Formal Equivalence demands that if it is a verb in the Greek or Hebrew, it must be a verb in the English. If it is a noun in the Greek or Hebrew it must be a noun in the English and so forth” (Divinely Inspired, p. 43). Steve Woods maintained that “they [the KJV translators] not only translated ‘word for word’ but they also translated ‘form for form’” and that “verbs were translated as verbs, nouns for nouns, adjectives for adjectives, and so on” (King’s Bible, p. 491).

Dennis Kwok claimed: “The translators of the KJB appointed by King James used the Verbal Equivalence method, word for word, as originally given by God” (VPP, p. 91). Dennis Kwok declared: “Every noun, adjective, preposition, participle, and so on in the Hebrew and Greek text is brought into English in the same way. That includes the structure and form as well” (p. 80). David H. Sorenson asserted: “The Traditional Text and the King James Version reflect the purified verbal transmission of God’s very words to this hour. Though the King James Version as a translation is not inspired, verbal preservation has carried the results of inspiration through to this hour in the King James Version. Those results are inerrancy and infallibility” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 211). Christopher Myers wrote: “The English King James Version (KJV) was translated from the Received Hebrew and Greek text, preserving every jot and tittle of the Word of God” (Riddle, Why I Preach, p. 189). David Loughran asserted that “a translator must, therefore, translate God’s words—all of them” and that “the King James Version translators employed a ‘word for word’ translation technique” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 81). Gary Miller claimed that the KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJV Bible, p. 18). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 31). Jack Hyles claimed: “Every single word of God has been preserved in the King James Bible, the only Bible” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 97). Jack McElroy asserted: “You can find all of his preserved, inerrant words in the King James Bible” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 423). Jack McElroy also declared: “King James Only folks believe that the Lord himself has provided them with a book that contains ALL of his words and ONLY his words WITHOUT ERROR” (p. 332).

I don't know about some of those guys, but Williams, Sorensen, Oullette, Bynam, Grady, Riplinger, DeVreis, and Hyles were not or are not linguists or Bible translators. So their opinions are worthless to me. We just had a chapel speaker who is helping on ten (I think it was) missionary Bible translations right now! Him I highly respect. But these guys you mentioned are not about the Great Commission. It seems to me that a strict KJVO position actually discourages missionary Bible translation because they are so concentrated on the English Bible.

 

[John of Japan]

You are correct about the Granville Sharp rule and the deity of Christ. Good point! My son and I are team teaching a class in Pastoral Epistles (we both teach Greek also), and he mentioned the rule in class just today. However, Granville Sharp actually lived 1735-1813, so it's not a recent rule. So then, the KJV translators did know about the rule.

I meant to write that the KJV translators did not know about the Granville Sharp rule, and tried to correct this, but apparently my correction did not make it past the AI editor (or who or whatever!).

 

[John of Japan]

I find it quite ironic that Williams and Steward use the terminology of dynamic equivalence (DE, also called functional equivalence), which is the invention of the neo-orthodox scholar Eugene Nida: "receptor." In DE theory, what is important is not authorial intent (God's intent!) but how the reader responds, thus "receptor."

“The terms ‘source,’ ‘message’ and ‘receptor’ all make totally explicit Nida’s starting assumption: translation is a form of communication. His communication model in its simplest form describes how a message requires a source, a content or meaning, and a receptor. In translation, a translator can function both as a receptor of a source language message and a source in the target language…. But Nida points out how much more is actually involved, especially since interpersonal communication takes place in a sociolinguistic, historical and cultural context. The meaning of the message and the way the reader responds to the message are shaped by these factors.”
Stine, Philip C. Let the Words Be Written. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2005, 40.

Secular translation studies scholars generally do not use Nida's terminology, especially "receptor." Instead, they use the word "target," as in "target language," or "target reader."

 

[Van]

It is sometimes suggested that the KJV is a literal, word-for-word Bible translation. The KJV does not actually give a literal rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture. The KJV omits giving any English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture. The KJV does not preserve each and every original-language word of Scripture by giving an English rendering for each and every one. KJV-only advocates will condemn other English Bibles on the basis of their demands for word-for-word translating, but they do not apply the same measures/standards to the KJV itself.

In some places where the Hebrew Masoretic Text has a Hebrew noun meaning hand in English, the KJV does not give the English rendering "hand" for it in the verse. In their 1611 marginal note at 2 Chronicles 17:15, the KJV translators gave a literal, word-for-word rendering.

2 Chronicles 17:15 [1611 margin—“Heb at his hand”]
And next to him [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next to his hand [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
And next to him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 17:16 [see also 2 Chron. 17:15, 17:18, 31:15]
And by his side [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next him [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 17:18
And by his side [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next him [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 29:25 [1611 margin—"Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]
through the hand of the Prophets [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his prophets [1611 KJV]
by the hand of His prophets [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]

2 Chronicles 31:15 [see also 2 Chron. 17:15, 17:16, 17:18]
And under him [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And under his hand [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And by his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]
And under him [NKJV]

Once again a discussion of translation where word for word is considered a something other than word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning. If a Hebrew idiom uses "on his hand" to mean "next to him" either translation choice would be a word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation. The "on his hand" goes with the literal meaning of the individual words, and next to him goes with the meaning of the idiom.

 

[John of Japan]

Of the definitions of word-for-word that Logos 1560 kindly laid out for us, the best is that of H. D. Williams, which is odd since he knows neither Greek nor Hebrew, and is fluent in no foreign language. (He and I have clashed.) He at least considers the syntax (sentence structure), which the others did not do. Here is his definition again, given by Logos:

H. D. Williams gave the following definition of word-for-word translating: “rendering a word or words in a receptor language the same as in a source-language” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. xx). H. D. Williams asserted: “Literal word-for-word translating is translating words in the source language for words in the receptor language so far as the syntax of the receptor-language will allow” (p. 4).

The worst is that of Gail Riplinger (not surprisingly). Logos reports:

Gail Riplinger maintained that the KJV is a “word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 270). Gail Riplinger also contended that the KJV has “literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text” and claimed that it shows “all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288). Riplinger claimed that “the KJV is the only English formal equivalency translation of the pure Greek and Hebrew Bible” (p. 90).

There are three types of Greek words which usually do not get translated, even in the KJV and other literal translations: particles, conjunctions, and the definite article. It is very simplistic to assume that these can be translated into English.

A particle is a small word that is usually not translated, nor even translatable. It usually has grammatical meaning, but often has no semantic content, meaning it does not usually have the meaning of a verb, noun, etc., but simply points to a point of grammar. Examples: the eth (אֵ֥ת) particle of Hebrew is the marker for the direct object; likewise the を (wo) of Japanese. The Chinese particle 的 (de) simply shows possession. In Greek, we have μεν (men, showing contrast, often used with the particle de, as μεν...δε to mean “on the one hand…on the other,” but for this the word “but” is usually used in English.)

Conjunctions connect two clauses or phrases. The most common in Koine Greek is και (kai), meaning usually “and.” A similar word is δε (de), having a weaker nuance and usually translated “but” or “and”—when it is actually translated, that is. The KJV and other English translations often do not translate these particles. The reason is that, since many Greek sentences begin with one of these, rendering them all begins to sound awkward in English.

The Greek definite article is the third type of word often not translated. The English definite article is “the,” but the Greek definite article is often used very differently. For example, it comes before proper names, thus: ὁ Ἰησοῦς, literally translated “the Jesus.” If the translators were to render this as is, it would sound very strange, so the definite article is omitted many, many times in the KJV.

There is no indefinite article (a, an) in Koine Greek, so the KJV translators had to supply at leas 1749 of these, according to my software! And the translators didn’t even put them in italics!

Certain verb forms cannot be translated. For example, the aktionsart (kind of action) of the Greek perfect tense is very difficult to translate with the proper nuance. It refers to action complete in the past, with continuing results. So, on the cross Jesus said Τετέλεσται, “It is finished” (John 19:30). It would really sound weird to translate the perfect tense nuance: “It is finished now, but the results will continue….” Obviously the KJV did not translate this nuance.

I could go on.

 

[JesusFan]

It is sometimes suggested that the KJV is a literal, word-for-word Bible translation. The KJV does not actually give a literal rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture. The KJV omits giving any English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture. The KJV does not preserve each and every original-language word of Scripture by giving an English rendering for each and every one. KJV-only advocates will condemn other English Bibles on the basis of their demands for word-for-word translating, but they do not apply the same measures/standards to the KJV itself.

In some places where the Hebrew Masoretic Text has a Hebrew noun meaning hand in English, the KJV does not give the English rendering "hand" for it in the verse. In their 1611 marginal note at 2 Chronicles 17:15, the KJV translators gave a literal, word-for-word rendering.

2 Chronicles 17:15 [1611 margin—“Heb at his hand”]
And next to him [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next to his hand [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
And next to him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 17:16 [see also 2 Chron. 17:15, 17:18, 31:15]
And by his side [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next him [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 17:18
And by his side [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And next him [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And at his hand [YLT] [LSV]
And on his hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Chronicles 29:25 [1611 margin—"Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his Prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]
through the hand of the Prophets [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his prophets [1611 KJV]
by the hand of His prophets [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]

2 Chronicles 31:15 [see also 2 Chron. 17:15, 17:16, 17:18]
And under him [1537 Matthew’s Bible]
And at his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
And under his hand [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
And next him [1611 KJV]
And by his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]
And under him [NKJV]

It is a formal translation, but is not totally literal edition, as there are indeed areas where they made a more dynamic translation, but far fewer instances than in versions such as the Niv.

 

[JesusFan]

I meant to write that the KJV translators did not know about the Granville Sharp rule, and tried to correct this, but apparently my correction did not make it past the AI editor (or who or whatever!).

They did not use that rule, as seen by how they translated peter and Paul stating our great God and savior as referencing and implying 2 persons there, but per the rule being applied, Jesus is both God and savior there

 

[John of Japan]

They did not use that rule, as seen by how they translated peter and Paul stating our great God and savior as referencing and implying 2 persons there, but per the rule being applied, Jesus is both God and savior there

References?

 

[John of Japan]

It is a formal translation, but is not totally literal edition, as there are indeed areas where they made a more dynamic translation, but far fewer instances than in versions such as the Niv.

I never use the term "dynamic" for the KJV. To do so is to misunderstand the methodology of DE, which aims to produce a response from the reader that is equal to the response of the original readers: "reader response theory." So the rendering is sometimes similar, but the method of the KJV translators is never the same as Eugene Nida's DE.

 

[Logos1560]

What are you thoughts about the Granville Sharp rule? This was a later development of Greek scholarship and provides more clarity to the deity of Christ.

Theodore Beza had suggested this long before Granville Sharp.

Several pre-1611 English Bibles and many post-1611 English Bibles clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In his 1538 Latin-English New Testament, Miles Coverdale rendered it “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's New Testament, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Tomson’s New Testament, 1657 Haak’s English translation of the Dutch Bible, 1755 Wesley's New Testament, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, 1862 Young’s Literal Translation, 1866 American Bible Union Version, 1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and other English translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." Thomas Goodwin maintained that “[Theodore] Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,’” and that “it clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283).

At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note indicating the accurate translation and meaning of the Greek. An earlier KJV edition printed in London in 1711 had the same note and a cross reference to Titus 2:13. Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the Bible scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English Bible translators and the editors of some standard KJV editions.

At Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other English translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” more clearly presenting the deity of Christ. John Wesley translated it as “the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Joseph Benson observed that Theodore Beza maintained “that one person only is spoken of, namely, Jesus Christ” (New Testament, II, p. 472). Granville Sharp noted that Beza “insists, however, that these two titles do not refer to two distinct persons, because the article is omitted before the second” (Remarks, p. 22). In the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible, this note is given for Titus 2:13: “Christ is here most plainly called that mighty God.“ Francis Turretin (1623-1687) as translated by George Giger wrote: “He is called ‘the great God’ (Tit. 2:13)--certainly not the Father, but the Son because only one article is prefixed to the words God and Saviour (which would not be the case if they were two persons)“ (Institutes, I, p. 284). In his 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch Annotations at this verse, Theodore Haak noted: “That is, of Jesus Christ, our great God and Saviour; for both these titles are here ascribed to Jesus Christ.” Concerning Titus 2:13 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this is stated: “To the confutation and confusion of all that deny the Deity of Christ, the Apostle here calleth him not only God, but the great God.”

 

[John of Japan]

About the conjunctions, in Matthew 2 of the KJV, there are three verses that do not translate the Greek conjunction δε (de), meaning and or but or not.

v. 9—When they had heard the king,
Οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες τοῦ βασιλέως

v. 10— When they saw the star,
Ἰδόντες δὲ τὸν ἀστέρα

v. 14— When he arose,
Ὁ δὲ ἐγερθεὶς

 

[Logos1560]

I find it quite ironic that Williams and Steward use the terminology of dynamic equivalence (DE, also called functional equivalence), which is the invention of the neo-orthodox scholar Eugene Nida: "receptor." In DE theory, what is important is not authorial intent (God's intent!) but how the reader responds, thus "receptor."

Eugene Nida may have invented the term "dynamic equivalence", but that does not mean that the term has not developed any different meanings since he invented it.

Peter Cotterell and Max Turner observed: “In practice, all languages change gradually with time, and words come to have new meanings, older meanings often becoming obsolete. Hence the appeal to ‘original’ meaning as authoritative or normative involves fundamental misunderstanding” (Linguistics, p. 131). Peter Cotterell and Max Turner wrote: “Words take on new meanings in the life of the language, and original meanings are often lost sight of, and come to contribute nothing to the understanding of the word” (p. 113). Henry Virkler wrote: “Word meanings often change significantly within one or two hundred years, so that there is no clear connection between the present use of a word and the meaning of its ancestral roots” (Christian’s Guide, p. 33). D. A. Carson affirmed: “Words change their meaning over time” (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 36).

KJV-only advocates suggest that a dynamic equivalent translation would be a thought-for-thought translation. In the glossary of the book Thou Shalt Keep Them edited by Kent Brandenburg, the term dynamic equivalence is defined as follows: “A translation philosophy that emphasizes the communication of the message or substance of the words of the original language rather than a literal, word-for-word rendering” (p. 10). At his entry for dynamic equivalent in his glossary, Thomas Holland stated: “A thought for thought translation to provide overall meaning” (Crowned with Glory, p. 249). In his glossary, Douglas Stauffer defined the term dynamic equivalency theory as “a method of Bible translation that translates thoughts rather than words” (One Book Stands, p. 408).

KJV-only advocates may use the term "dynamic equivalent" with a different meaning than how Eugene Nida used it. According to the same meaning or sense in which KJV-only advocates use the term "dynamic equivalent" for renderings in the NKJV, I think that the term can be applied to some renderings in the KJV.

 

[John of Japan]

Eugene Nida may have invented the term "dynamic equivalence", but that does not mean that the term has not developed any different meanings since he invented it.

You are correct. In fact, that is what made Nida change his terminology. His chronicler wrote:

“Nida later felt that the term 'dynamic equivalence' had been misunderstood and was partly responsible for translations like the Living Bible. Some translators used the term 'dynamic' to refer to translations that had impact and appeal. But since he had in fact defined 'dynamic equivalence in terms of 'functional equivalence,' he began to use this latter term instead. ‘Functional equivalence' was introduced in From One Language to Another, co-authored with Jan de Waard" (Philip C. Stine, Let the Words Be Written. 2004, p. 51).

Here is what Nida and d Waard wrote: “Unfortunately, the expression ‘dynamic equivalence’ has often been misunderstood as referring to anything which might have special impact and appeal for receptors. Some Bible translators have seriously violated the principle of dynamic equivalence as described in Theory and Practice of Translating and Toward a Science of Translating. It is hoped, therefore, that the use of the expression ’functional equivalence’ may serve to highlight the communicative functions of translating and to avoid misunderstanding” (Eugene Nida and Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another, 1986, pp. vii, viii).

Therefore on this thread I'll refer to Nida's theory as "functional equivalence."

Peter Cotterell and Max Turner observed: “In practice, all languages change gradually with time, and words come to have new meanings, older meanings often becoming obsolete. Hence the appeal to ‘original’ meaning as authoritative or normative involves fundamental misunderstanding” (Linguistics, p. 131). Peter Cotterell and Max Turner wrote: “Words take on new meanings in the life of the language, and original meanings are often lost sight of, and come to contribute nothing to the understanding of the word” (p. 113). Henry Virkler wrote: “Word meanings often change significantly within one or two hundred years, so that there is no clear connection between the present use of a word and the meaning of its ancestral roots” (Christian’s Guide, p. 33). D. A. Carson affirmed: “Words change their meaning over time” (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 36).

H. D. Williams took umbrage at my negative review of his book on Amazon when I pointed out that his definition of DE was incomplete. KJVO writers are seldom disciplined enough to do the hard work of understanding translation and the various theories thereof. Again, very few of them know anything about missionary translation efforts, having never participated nor investigated them. The exception to this is Steve Combs, who wrote A Practical Theology of Bible Translating, and The Translator's Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus. While sometimes disagreeing with Combs, I really respect what he is doing. I don't remember how he uses the DE term, though, and am not in my office right now to check.

KJV-only advocates suggest that a dynamic equivalent translation would be a thought-for-thought translation. In the glossary of the book Thou Shalt Keep Them edited by Kent Brandenburg, the term dynamic equivalence is defined as follows: “A translation philosophy that emphasizes the communication of the message or substance of the words of the original language rather than a literal, word-for-word rendering” (p. 10). At his entry for dynamic equivalent in his glossary, Thomas Holland stated: “A thought for thought translation to provide overall meaning” (Crowned with Glory, p. 249). In his glossary, Douglas Stauffer defined the term dynamic equivalency theory as “a method of Bible translation that translates thoughts rather than words” (One Book Stands, p. 408).

KJV-only advocates may use the term "dynamic equivalent" with a different meaning than how Eugene Nida used it. According to the same meaning or sense in which KJV-only advocates use the term "dynamic equivalent" for renderings in the NKJV, I think that the term can be applied to some renderings in the KJV.

You are correct. But that does not make them right. This simply points up the fact the typical KJVO writer is not scholarly, nor or they up with the developments in translation studies theory. They use the DE term not understanding what it means, simply to criticize modern translation efforts.

Secular scholars of translation studies understand quite well what functional equivalence is, and often use the DE term as I have on this thread, emphasizing reader response. Lawrence Venuti wrote: "Communication here is controlled by or for the receptors, it is in fact an interested interpretation, and therefore it seems less an exchange of information than an appropriation of a foreign text to serve a purpose in the receiving culture. Nida’s theory of translation as communication does not adequately take into account the ethnocentric violence that is inherent in every translation process—but especially in one governed by dynamic equivalence. In view of this violence, how can a translation possibly produce an effect on the receptors that is equivalent to the effect produced by the foreign text on its initial audience?” (The Translator’s Invisibility, 1995, 2008, p. 17).

So, let me put it this way. The translators of the KJV did not use functional equivalence in their efforts. In Nida's design, this term really describes the method used to translate, not the finished product. I think the emphasis on the finished product has led astray KJVO authors, and even other fundamentalists and evangelicals, in their understanding of functional equivalence.

 

[John of Japan]

I mentioned Steve Combs as a KJVO writer I respect. Here is his correct definition of dynamic equivalence: "The theory of Dynamic Equivalence says that the new translation should cause the r3eaders to react the same way that the original readers reacted" (A Practical Theology of Bible Translating, 2019, p. 76).

 

[John of Japan]

KJV-only advocates suggest that a dynamic equivalent translation would be a thought-for-thought translation. In the glossary of the book Thou Shalt Keep Them edited by Kent Brandenburg, the term dynamic equivalence is defined as follows: “A translation philosophy that emphasizes the communication of the message or substance of the words of the original language rather than a literal, word-for-word rendering” (p. 10). At his entry for dynamic equivalent in his glossary, Thomas Holland stated: “A thought for thought translation to provide overall meaning” (Crowned with Glory, p. 249). In his glossary, Douglas Stauffer defined the term dynamic equivalency theory as “a method of Bible translation that translates thoughts rather than words” (One Book Stands, p. 408).

I should note here that the term "thought for thought" has been around for over 2000 years. Mark Shuttleworth and Moira Cowie, in defining word-for-word, note: "A method of translating which entails precise fidelity to the wording of ST (source text--JoJ). Like its opposite, SENSE-FOR-SENSE (caps because it refers to another entry--JoJ), the term was originally coined in the first century BC by the Roman writers Cicero and Horace" (pp. 197-198, Dictionary of Translation Studies). Jerome also discussed this in his "Letter to Pamachius."

Functional Equivalence (the Nida update of DE) is not the same as thought-for-thought. An FE translator will quite often translate fairly literally if he or she believes that will produce the right reader response. For example, the NIV is often said, correctly I think, to be FE/DE, but many verses are pretty literal! So again, to me it is inaccurate to make DE (or FE) to be equivalent to a simple thought for thought method.