KJV is well loved and used

No doubt is it a well loved translation. Alot SBC churches in my area still use the NIV84 or have transitioned to the HCSB or CSB. Many still use the KJV. My church uses the ESV or HCSB depending on who is preaching. Several churches in the county to the south use the NLT.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

I praise God for bringing to His people English Translations of His Word that help us grow in our Knowledge of Him and godliness!

 

I dont think the NASB, ESV, NJKV or NIV have watered anything down. In fact that have made God's word clearer to the modern reader. While I have no interest in going after the KJV--it was written centuries ago and language has evolved-- one could show several places where the KJV is more ambiguous in its rendering, and those like the NASB and NIV give us clearer renderings. Hebrews 4:12 is on verse that comes to mind where the evolution of language as left the KJV more ambiguous over the likes of the NIV or NASB

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

You do not demonstrate that your accusation against new translations is true. You do not define and explain what "watered down version" clearly means, and you do not show that the term would be applied justly and consistently.

If applied justly and consistently, it could suggest that the Church of England makers of the KJV "watered down" some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

 

As shown by them adopting some of the renderings that no doubt King James preferred!

 

Did the Church of England makers of the 1611 KJV tone down or water down the pre-1611 English Bible's condemnation of tyrants and tyranny?

Why did the Bible revisers who made the KJV remove the strong words "tyrant,” “tyrants,” and “tyranny” from the text of the pre-1611 English Bible? According to the first rule given its makers, what “truth of the original” demanded this change?

Did the Church of England makers of the KJV avoid using the word "tyrant" to keep from offending King James or were they perhaps instructed to remove it?

 

Did the Church of England makers of the KJV tone down or water down the pre-1611 English Bible's support of congregational church government?

Are there some places where the makers of the KJV changed the Geneva Bible perhaps in order to make it more favorable to Church of England doctrines such as episcopal church government and apostolic succession?

Acts 14:23
And when they had ordained them elders by election [1560 Geneva Bible] [Greek Textus Receptus with possible influence from Latin NT of Erasmus or Latin NT of Beza]

And when they had ordained them elders [1611 KJV] [Greek TR with possible textual influence from Latin Vulgate perhaps by means of 1582 Rheims]

Did leaving out the words "by election" at Acts 14:23 found in the pre-1611 English Bibles water down their support of congregational church government and make the 1611 KJV more favorable to a Church of England episcopal church government view?

Acts 1:20
Let another take his charge [1560 Geneva Bible]
His bishoprick let another take [1611 KJV]

The Church of England appealed to this rendering "bishoprick" to support their doctrine of apostolic succession which tied in with their episcopal church government doctrine.

Acts 1:22
must one of them be made a witness [1560 Geneva Bible]
must one of them be ordained a witness [1611 KJV]

Does the 1611 KJV add an ecclesiastical term "ordained" to try to help support their Church of England doctrine of apostolic succession claim concerning Acts 1:20?

Acts 1:26
and he was by a common consent counted [1560 Geneva Bible]
and he was numbered [1611 KJV]

Acts 7:38
the congregation in the wilderness [1560 Geneva Bible]

the church in the wilderness [1611 KJV]

Did the Church of England attempt to provide support for their efforts to advocate episcopal church government by appeals to the Old Testament by putting the church in it?

1 Corinthians 12:28
helpers, governours [1560 Geneva Bible]

helps in government [1611 edition of the KJV]

Presbyterians had appealed to this verse to support their church government view as KJV co-editor Thomas Bilson acknowledged.

Did the 1611 edition of the KJV attempt to change the meaning of this verse in order to water down or take away a verse used to advocate Presbyterian church government?

 

Those who advocate a modern, man-made KJV-only view will repeat what others have said without checking the claims out for themselves and without considering whether the claims are based on use of consistent, just measures applied justly.

 

What would the fact that those who use the term of accusation "watered down version" do not define and explain what they mean by it and the fact that they do not present what clear, consistent, sound measures or standards are applied justly as the basis of its usage suggest?

It is fair, sound, and scriptural to ask concerning the measures or standards used as the basis for an accusation.

The KJV itself would suggest that any use of unjust divers measures, weights, balances, or standards would be an abomination to the LORD.

 

I for one love the word of God.

Hmm actually is there anyone here on the BB that doesn't?

An honest difference of nuance choices in translation is not a watering down.

Neither is an honest difference in variant choices.

 

I quite like the K.J.V. I'm always happy to preach from it if a church askes me to do so. But I don't think I could join a church that used it exclusively. When one is preaching from it, one first has to explain what it means in modern English, before starting an exposition.

There are four main problems with the K.J.V. as I see it.

1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the K.J.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow.’ Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the K.J.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’

2. Some of the language in the K.J.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezek 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.

3. Supporters of the K.J.V. make great play on the fact that some modern translations omit references to the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as indeed they do (except the N.K.J.V.). The most frequently cited verse is 1Timothy 3:16, though there are several others. Less well known is that there are two places where all the modern translations affirm the deity of our Lord, but the K.J.V. does not.

Titus 2:13, K.J.V. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

Titus 2:13, N.I.V. ‘While we wait for the blessed hope- the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’ (other modern versions are similar).

2Peter 1:1b, K.J.V. ‘…..To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’

2Peter 1:1b, N.I.V. ‘….To those who through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ have obtained a faith as precious as ours’ (other modern versions are similar).

The only modern translation that supports the K.J.V. in these two texts is the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Just in case it might be thought that the K.J.V. is right in these instances, let the reader look at 2 Peter 1:11. Here the K.J.V. rightly translates, ‘….our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ Yet the Greek construction here is exactly the same as in 1:1. I have no doubt that all the translators of the A.V. were staunch Trinitarians, but it ill behoves K.J.V. supporters to sneer at the N.I.V. while the K.J.V. contains such serious errors.

4. There is also another place where the K.J.V. finds itself in agreement with the J.W.s. In John 1:32, it denies the personality of the Holy Spirit, referring to Him as ‘it.’ If a new Bible version appeared today with a similar error in it, the supporters of the KJV would be the first to pillory both the version and its translators .

Let me be clear once again. I am not saying that the K.J.V. is a bad translation or that it is worse than the N.I.V. The N.I.V. falls short on numerous occasions. What I am saying is that the question of Bible translations should not be made an excuse for separation. Let discussion continue by all means, but in a spirit of love while we contend for the Gospel of Christ. If the N.K.J.V. is not acceptable, let us have a new version based on the traditional texts, produced by a Christian organization. I can think of no one better to do it that the Trinitarian Bible Society. There is a Spanish Bible version, the Reina Valera, that is even older than the K.J.V., and based upon the same texts. Yet this version has been regularly updated as the Spanish language has changed. Revisions were made in 1909, in 1960, and now I understand that the T.B.S. has recently made a new revision. Quite right! If the K.J.V. had been carefully revised every 50 years or so, there might not have been the need for the plethora of new versions.

 

This is why one should have knowledge and access to the original languages.
If not then have computer access with the ability and resource to align 20-30 passages of the same verse in English.

 

Martin, I understand your point, but disagree slightly with the way you express it. In the case of "let" -- and most other such words in the KJV -- the meaning intended in 1611 is still a part of the range of meaning of the word. Some of these words may be labeled archaic, or rare in present-day usage -- but often not. So the case, as I see, is not that the offending word doesn't still mean what it meant in 1611, but that we likely don't know that it means that because we rarely use it that way. This may seem nit-picky, but I see it as a distinction with a difference.

[The online dictionary I most commonly use (Dictionary.com) gives "to hinder, prevent, or obstruct" as a meaning of let, but labels it as archaic. But archaic doesn't mean that a word doesn't mean that given definition.]

 

What use is a definition in a dictionary if 99% of the population speaking the language doesn't know about it?

Choosing "technically right" over revision shows a greater concern for the translation than the original meaning, from my vantage point.

 

Not sure I can begin to comprehend this! The purpose of the dictionary is usually to give us definitions of words (usually, that we don't know about).

I wasn't speaking of translation issues, but of the correct way to express something -- e.g. "doesn't ever mean" vs. doesn't usually mean". It is not correct to say that "let" does not mean "hinder". Nevertheless, I am probably more sensitive to this way of expressing it because I am a partisan for the King James translation. Nevertheless, I do not believe that translating κατέχων as "hinder" or "restrain" rather than "let" is wrong or bad, as some of the more stringent KJV folks would argue.