On Bibles

[franklinmonroe]

... The only thing I will add is that I have heard many times that the English language of the Elizabethian or Shakespearian era was at it's "zenith" and that, type and spelling updates excepted, it has all been downhill from there. I don't want to read a Bible (so-called ) that is written in the common english vernacular of our day. If we start patterning our Bibles after the "updated" english of our day (and they already have!) it may start sounding and reading like gutter trash-talk. Just a quick trip through the land of TV sitcoms and reality (so-called) shows OR the vernacular of "texting" is enough to tell me that. ...

There is a significant difference between the vernacular of a language's literary form and it's common everyday speech. The KJV was not written in the language of privately spoken 17th century English, but rather composed in the style of published English (actually, more like 16th century).

Admittedly, there have been some versions that attempt to simulate 'street' language but they are decidedly non-literary publications; they are not translations, nor even genuine paraphrases.

 

[ktn4eg]

There is a significant difference between the vernacular of a language's literary form and it's common everyday speech. The KJV was not written in the language of privately spoken 17th century English, but rather composed in the style of published English (actually, more like 16th century).

Admittedly, there have been some versions that attempt to simulate 'street' language but they are decidedly non-literary publications; they are not translations, nor even genuine paraphrases.

Sorta, kinda like "P_ _ S" in various parts of the original (as well as many subsequent "revisions" of THE "Word" of God), in several portions of books in "THE" Word of God, right? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Hey Ya'll...

Just want to drop a note in here to say that I haven't "backed out" of the discussion....just been unable to take the time the last few days. It is time consuming for me to do this sometimes because I am not a very prolific typist. One of those "eye/brain-glazing" posts like Logos regularly puts in here would take me H O U R S to do. (plus I'll admit I'm nowhere NEAR that smart as far as book-learnin' goes...I just have "heart" knowledge:thumbsup::laughIn any case I've just had to back off the last few days...had a sick wife and other stuff going on. We'd appreciate your prayers asking God to meet certain needs and lead us here. I just don't want anyone thinking I chickened out:smilewinkgrin:.

By the way Ktn4eg...piss is a perfectly good old english BIBLE word that has not changed in meaning in the last 400 years. As such,we should not be afraid to use it as it is NOT a curse word inspite of the fact that some have "adopted" it as a slang expression. Like I have said before...spelling corrections aside(and thank God for them), english is a wonderful God-given language for which I am very thankful (since it is the only one I speak or read)...BUT...like everything else (including Bibles) in this world it is being steadily perverted and corrupted as we approach the culmination of human history in this fallen world. The KJV is just fine and needs no improvement (in my opinion). I haven't seen a thing with or in the new "Bibles" that changes my mind. Let no man think that Satan will leave the Word of the living God alone. He has been perverting/changing/corrupting it since the garden of Eden and he is still trying to do the same in our day. OK...I'm done for now!:type:

Bro.Greg

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Ah...the common man!!!

There is a significant difference between the vernacular of a language's literary form and it's common everyday speech. The KJV was not written in the language of privately spoken 17th century English, but rather composed in the style of published English (actually, more like 16th century).

Admittedly, there have been some versions that attempt to simulate 'street' language but they are decidedly non-literary publications; they are not translations, nor even genuine paraphrases.

That said...I would definitely feel comfortable saying that even the common or street language of that (16th,17th century) was/is far more refined than the equivalent in our day. We have definitely gotten worse...not better. Slang talk is much more prevalent in our day(in my opinion).

It is gratifying to me that our God went to great measures to make sure that His precious and Holy Word was/is available in the most prevalent and commonly accepted languages of whatever generation would need to be able to read them...be it (in general) english/spanish/french/german/russian/chinese/indian/arabic,etc., etc. of our day or the koine Greek/Hebrew (and possibly Aramaic) of the early church days and mostly Hebrew of the days prior to Christ's virgin birth. Thank God for His Word!!!! I just believe it to be the KJV (for english-speaking people). I'm just a "common" kinda guy with a good dictionary:laugh:

Bro.Greg:type: (retiring back to my cave now!)

 

[Yeshua1]

That said...I would definitely feel comfortable saying that even the common or street language of that (16th,17th century) was/is far more refined than the equivalent in our day. We have definitely gotten worse...not better. Slang talk is much more prevalent in our day(in my opinion).

It is gratifying to me that our God went to great measures to make sure that His precious and Holy Word was/is available in the most prevalent and commonly accepted languages of whatever generation would need to be able to read them...be it (in general) english/spanish/french/german/russian/chinese/indian/arabic,etc., etc. of our day or the koine Greek/Hebrew (and possibly Aramaic) of the early church days and mostly Hebrew of the days prior to Christ's virgin birth. Thank God for His Word!!!! I just believe it to be the KJV (for english-speaking people). I'm just a "common" kinda guy with a good dictionary:laugh:

Bro.Greg:type: (retiring back to my cave now!)

Did jesus speak English?

God to Moses/Abraham though?

 

[Rippon]

I just believe it to be the KJV (for english-speaking people). I'm just a "common" kinda guy with a good dictionary

You may be a common guy but your criteria for an acceptable translation in 2012 is quite at odds with the ideas of Purvey,Tyndale,Luther & Co.

Your dictionary better be pre-1833 to access your needs.

 

[franklinmonroe]

par·a·phrase   [par-uh-freyz]
noun
1.
a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording.
2.
the act or process of restating or rewording.

Main Entry: paraphrase  [par-uh-freyz] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: translation, interpretation
Synonyms: digest, explanation, rehash, rendering, rendition, rephrasing, restatement, rewording, summary, version
Notes: a paraphrase is a restatement or rewording of a text or passage for the purpose of clarification; a summary is a brief statement that presents the main points in a concise form; a summation is a summary or argument reviewing the principal points made and expressing conclusions
Antonyms: quotation

By using these definitions as implied in some posts, then EVERY Bible translation (after the prophets and apostolic writers themselves) could be called a 'paraphrase'. Since translators do render the meaning of the biblical text (Hebrew, Greek) into another form (like English) it would be a 'paraphrase' no matter how literal. If you can relate this into art terms, then perhaps you understand that no matter how realistically an artist creates a representation of something (in sculpture, or by painting) it is always just an abstraction of an object (and not that object itself). A photograph of a tree is not actually the tree. Some artwork is more abstract than others; but it is all abstract to some degree. All translation is also an abstraction,

But the specific key is the prefix "re-" (as in "rewording"); which implies that the text had previously been stated. The Living Bible is a genuine paraphrase; Ken Taylor acknowledged that he began with the ASV text as his base (not Hebrew, or Greek). His goal was to clarify the Bible for his children. I feel that unless the NIV can be shown to be a direct "rehash", a "summary", or further "interpretation" of a pre-existing English text then it is not equitable to speak of it as a paraphrase while at the same time neglecting other original versions.

 

[Yeshua1]

By using these definitions as implied in some posts, then EVERY Bible translation (after the prophets and apostolic writers themselves) could be called a 'paraphrase'. Since translators do render the meaning of the biblical text (Hebrew, Greek) into another form (like English) it would be a 'paraphrase' no matter how literal. If you can relate this into art terms, then perhaps you understand that no matter how realistically an artist creates a representation of something (in sculpture, or by painting) it is always just an abstraction of an object (and not that object itself). A photograph of a tree is not actually the tree. Some artwork is more abstract than others; but it is all abstract to some degree. All translation is also an abstraction,

But the specific key is the prefix "re-" (as in "rewording"); which implies that the text had previously been stated. The Living Bible is a genuine paraphrase; Ken Taylor acknowledged that he began with the ASV text as his base (not Hebrew, or Greek). His goal was to clarify the Bible for his children. I feel that unless the NIV can be shown to be a direct "rehash", a "summary", or further "interpretation" of a pre-existing English text then it is not equitable to speak of it as a paraphrase while at the same time neglecting other original versions.

Think that people need to realise that IF one had a totally formal/literal translation rendered from hebrew/Greek texts, would be extremely hard to read and understand, see 1901 ASV!

As English does NOT have a strict word for word equivalent always, and if one followed greek ordering, would be interesting to read, might as well use an Interlinear!

On the other hand, English HAS indeed made numerous changes in way we understand words/terms, so the KJV version would by necessity need to at least upgrade to reflect contemporay wording/usuage, as in the NKJV!

So versions range from say Youngs Literal/1901 ASV to the message, with majority somewhere in between, as the nasb is most literal of those in between, with NLT most liberal, and Niv/Hcsb mediating in between them!

Also always is 'funny' to me how much we like to get into pumping up/putting down versions, yet few if any of us have either translated anything, or had traing/degrees in textual criticism!

 

[Rippon]

The KJV is just fine and needs no improvement (in my opinion).

That is a patently nonsensical sentiment. It has been altered and improved ever since it first came out in 1611. No Bible version is perfect with no need of improvement! It's a mortal work with human errors within. The Lord has not given anyone any such declaration.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

What I mean is.....

That is a patently nonsensical sentiment. It has been altered and improved ever since it first came out in 1611. No Bible version is perfect with no need of improvement! It's a mortal work with human errors within. The Lord has not given anyone any such declaration.

No brother...that is NOT nonsense. I will clarify though that I was referring to the KJV in its most common current form (more often than not I would think that to be the 1769 edition). If the Word of God is a "mortal" work then GOD HELP US. The Bible is a supernatural book Inspired, Protected, and Preserved by God's divine power and hand. I take that as true by faith. I will one day go to heaven believing that....either by way of the grave or the rapture. If by some unforseen chance that is not true then God will correct me at His Judgement Seat while the world suffers through the tribulation.

Bro.Gregraying:

 

[Oldtimer]

No brother...that is NOT nonsense. I will clarify though that I was referring to the KJV in its most common current form (more often than not I would think that to be the 1769 edition). If the Word of God is a "mortal" work then GOD HELP US. The Bible is a supernatural book Inspired, Protected, and Preserved by God's divine power and hand. I take that as true by faith. I will one day go to heaven believing that....either by way of the grave or the rapture. If by some unforseen chance that is not true then God will correct me at His Judgement Seat while the world suffers through the tribulation.

Bro.Gregraying:

Brother Greg, I was wondering how you'd reply. Brother Rippon, IMO, knew exactly what you meant. He's far too intelligent and studied not to have known (understood). He has nitpicked my posts, too. :flower:

As a layman, with much to learn, I come here to grow in God's word. Often to read both sides of various debates to help understand the issues. To test what I "think" I know vs the TRUTH. There's a big difference, IMO between "thinking" and conviction. Only the Holy Spirit can change the latter. Well voiced opinions of others can help change the former.

As with the people in my church, I'm slowing learning which ones I can turn to and which ones I can't. Which ones I can ask a question or make a comment without the dread of them playing games with with my words. There's one at church I won't ask the time of day. Even a simple question like that is enough for him to make sure I'm aware of his superiority in all matters, including the time of day. He may well be superior. Many/most folks are in one way or another, as I look at how insignificant my life is in the big picture. However, he should let me come to that recognition rather than pounding on me to whip me into saluting his status. What he doesn't recognize is that I can't see his heart because his chest is puffed out so far.

Here, it grieves me deeply :tear: when professing Christians (general comment not directed to any individual poster) feel they can resort using terms such as "stupid", "hypocrite", "fool" and other ways to demean others. Not so much for myself, as this old skin has gotten pretty thick over the years. But, for those new in Christ seeking to grow in wisdom and knowledge. How does it help our new brothers and sisters if we resort to the tactics of the world? What does it tell them when they are to know us by the fruits we bear?

 

[Logos1560]

1769 Oxford KJV

I will clarify though that I was referring to the KJV in its most common current form (more often than not I would think that to be the 1769 edition).

How do you know whether or not there is one "most common current form" of the KJV? Are you assuming that all present KJV editions are the same?

There are actual ten to twenty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today. None of them are 100% identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

The 1769 Oxford KJV edition had "LORD" [Jehovah] in 75 or so places where a typical Oxford or Cambridge KJV edition today has "Lord" [Adonai]. Some present KJV editions may have "LORD" in a few of the places.

The 1769 Oxford KJV still had a number of non-standard English spellings that later KJV editions changed.
The 1769 Oxford also still had a character shaped like "f" for a long "s" so that "sin" was printed as "fin", "wise" was printed the same as "wife," etc, and those thousands of "f" for a long "s" were not changed until after 1810.

The 1769 Oxford KJV that I examined has "camels' furniture" (Gen. 32:34), "priest's custom" (1 Sam. 2:13) where the 1873 Cambridge corrected it to "priests' custom", no apostrophe at 2 Kings 5:17 [two mules burden], Genesis 31:23 [seven days journey],

Here are some examples of renderings in the 1769 Oxford KJV up to the book of Psalms that are not likely in any present KJV:

"the Lord" (Gen. 30:30) instead of "the LORD"
"thy progenitors" (Gen. 49:26) instead of "my progenitors"
"Zithri" (Exod. 6:21) instead of "Zichri" [printing error that remained in Oxford and Cambridge KJV editions over 100 years]
"LORD God" (Exod. 23:17) instead of "Lord GOD"
"brakedst" (Deut. 10:2) instead of "brakest"
"thy tithe" (Deut. 12:17) instead of "the tithe"
"thy earth" (Deut. 12:19) instead of "the earth"
"the widow's (Deut. 24:17 instead of "a widow's"
"Beer-sheba, Sheba" (Josh. 19:2) instead of "Beer-sheba, or Sheba" or "Beer-sheba, and Sheba"
"children of Gilead" (Jud. 11:7) instead of "elders of Gilead"
"all the coast" (Jud. 19:29) instead of "all the coasts"
"in a straight" (1 Sam. 13:6) instead of "in a strait"
"O LORD God" (2 Sam. 7:18) instead of "O Lord GOD"
"God" (2 Sam. 12:22) instead of "GOD" [likely first corrected in 1829 Oxford]
"whom God alone" (1 Chron. 29:1) instead of "whom alone God"
"on the pillars" (2 Chron. 4:12) instead of "on the top of the pillars"
"thy companions" (Job 41:6) instead of "the companions"
"unto me" (Ps. 18:47) instead of "under me"
"my foot" (Ps. 31:8) instead of "my feet"
"in the presence" (Ps. 68:2) instead of "at the presence"
"part" (ps. 78:66) instead of "parts"
"most high" (Ps. 91:1) instead of "most High" or "Most High"
"most high" (Ps. 91:9) instead of "most High" or "Most High"
"When there were" (Ps. 105:12) instead of "When they were"
"gates of iron" (Ps. 107:16) instead of "bars of iron"
"suffereth not not" (Ps. 107:38) instead of "suffereth not"
"O God the LORD" (Ps. 140:7) instead of "O GOD the Lord"
"O GOD the LORD" (Ps. 141:8) instead of "O GOD the Lord"

Without a higher standard or authority in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, editors or printers could not have made a good number of corrections to the 1611 edition, and they could not detect and correct later errors introduced by printers.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Just a BRIEF comment..

How do you know whether or not there is one "most common current form" of the KJV? Are you assuming that all present KJV editions are the same?

There are actual ten to twenty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today. None of them are 100% identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

The 1769 Oxford KJV edition had "LORD" [Jehovah] in 75 or so places where a typical Oxford or Cambridge KJV edition today has "Lord" [Adonai]. Some present KJV editions may have "LORD" in a few of the places.

The 1769 Oxford KJV still had a number of non-standard English spellings that later KJV editions changed.
The 1769 Oxford also still had a character shaped like "f" for a long "s" so that "sin" was printed as "fin", "wise" was printed the same as "wife," etc, and those thousands of "f" for a long "s" were not changed until after 1810.

The 1769 Oxford KJV that I examined has "camels' furniture" (Gen. 32:34), "priest's custom" (1 Sam. 2:13) where the 1873 Cambridge corrected it to "priests' custom", no apostrophe at 2 Kings 5:17 [two mules burden], Genesis 31:23 [seven days journey],

Here are some examples of renderings in the 1769 Oxford KJV up to the book of Psalms that are not likely in any present KJV:

"the Lord" (Gen. 30:30) instead of "the LORD"
"thy progenitors" (Gen. 49:26) instead of "my progenitors"
"Zithri" (Exod. 6:21) instead of "Zichri" [printing error that remained in Oxford and Cambridge KJV editions over 100 years]
"LORD God" (Exod. 23:17) instead of "Lord GOD"
"brakedst" (Deut. 10:2) instead of "brakest"
"thy tithe" (Deut. 12:17) instead of "the tithe"
"thy earth" (Deut. 12:19) instead of "the earth"
"the widow's (Deut. 24:17 instead of "a widow's"
"Beer-sheba, Sheba" (Josh. 19:2) instead of "Beer-sheba, or Sheba" or "Beer-sheba, and Sheba"
"children of Gilead" (Jud. 11:7) instead of "elders of Gilead"
"all the coast" (Jud. 19:29) instead of "all the coasts"
"in a straight" (1 Sam. 13:6) instead of "in a strait"
"O LORD God" (2 Sam. 7:18) instead of "O Lord GOD"
"God" (2 Sam. 12:22) instead of "GOD" [likely first corrected in 1829 Oxford]
"whom God alone" (1 Chron. 29:1) instead of "whom alone God"
"on the pillars" (2 Chron. 4:12) instead of "on the top of the pillars"
"thy companions" (Job 41:6) instead of "the companions"
"unto me" (Ps. 18:47) instead of "under me"
"my foot" (Ps. 31:8) instead of "my feet"
"in the presence" (Ps. 68:2) instead of "at the presence"
"part" (ps. 78:66) instead of "parts"
"most high" (Ps. 91:1) instead of "most High" or "Most High"
"most high" (Ps. 91:9) instead of "most High" or "Most High"
"When there were" (Ps. 105:12) instead of "When they were"
"gates of iron" (Ps. 107:16) instead of "bars of iron"
"suffereth not not" (Ps. 107:38) instead of "suffereth not"
"O God the LORD" (Ps. 140:7) instead of "O GOD the Lord"
"O GOD the LORD" (Ps. 141:8) instead of "O GOD the Lord"

Without a higher standard or authority in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, editors or printers could not have made a good number of corrections to the 1611 edition, and they could not detect and correct later errors introduced by printers.

:tonofbricks:

Bro.Logos...I am somewhat impressed by your apparent level of knowledge about these matters, BUT as I previously stated, my mind and my eyes tend to "glaze" over when I see these long, protracted posts that you and others in here tend to respond with. I mean you no disrespect. Let me apologize NOW if it seems that way. I wish I had a mind that works that way and could absorb and retain that much information in a coherent manner....but I don't...and that kind of thing doesn't really "speak" to me. 1 Cor.8:1 does state that "knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth." While I don't recall detecting any particular air of malice in your lengthy posts, I do not personally detect the sense of humility that should be characteristic of us ALL as we seek to exchange ideas and information by the grace of God. My position is one of faith. I do want it to be an "informed" faith that is supported by facts. That is one reason why I read and study the things I do. I just pray that we would all stay HUMBLE as we say and do what we say and do...in here in the BB fellowship...and beyond.

Now...That said...I am aware that there are numerous different published editions of the KJV in print today. The one I use most often is an Oxford edition of the old Scofield Reference or "Study System" as it calls itself. I have been told that it generally follows the readings of the 1769 edition. In any case...the only things I have found in it that might make me feel "uncomfortable" (if at all) would be some of Dr. Scofield's notes (which are not inspired!) I haven't done any in-depth verse by verse comparisons to establish that as an irrefutable fact and don't know when I'll ever get the personal time to pursue doing so. I have asked God to protect and lead me and show me what is and isn't true (for HIS sake,honor and glory) and have left that matter in His hands where it is safest. I do, however, read with interest, information about such things as time allows. Like I said...I do respect your level of knowledge and what it must have taken you to acquire it...but I do sometimes feel overwhelmed by that much information all at once. Perhaps you should NOT attempt to be so "exhaustive" everytime you post. I'll ask you this...... in light of what you have said in reference to the 1769 edition...in your opinion....what IS the most common and frequently published edition of the KJV TODAY...and I'll even ask you to tell me...IN YOUR OPINION...which one is THE BEST?? (KJV ONLY) :thumbsup: (since that is the one I'm discussing exclusively.

Bro.Greg

 

[Logos1560]

my mind and my eyes tend to "glaze" over when I see these long, protracted posts that you and others in here tend to respond with.

My post was not really that much longer than some of your posts.

Most of its length was actually listing specific examples of where the 1769 Oxford differs from today's varying KJV editions.

I could probably have listed over 200 examples if I listed all the ones that could be found in my 400 pages of differences in KJV editions that I have compiled.

 

[Logos1560]

The one I use most often is an Oxford edition of the old Scofield Reference or "Study System" as it calls itself.

If I recall correctly from what you said in another post, your KJV edition is actually a post-1991 Scofield Study Bible instead of the earlier old Scofield Reference Bible.

Although the publisher asserts that no changes were made to Scofield's notes, there are actually 50 or more differences in the text of the KJV edition between the Scofield Reference Bible [more typical Oxford KJV text] and the Scofield Study Bible [more typical Cambridge KJV text--likely Concord edition].

Most of the differences involve the spelling of proper names with Cambridge going back to 1611 spellings instead of the 1769 Oxford spellings.

 

[Logos1560]

in your opinion....what IS the most common and frequently published edition of the KJV TODAY

Since there are some many different publishers of the KJV and I have not examined all present editions, I am not certain which would be the most common.

At least in the 1900's in America, many of the KJV editions seem to have been based on a more typical Oxford KJV text although there were some some variations from publisher to publisher.

Because the American Bible Society printed larger quantities of the KJV than any other publisher at times, it could have been the most common KJV edition, especially in the 1800's.

Today in America there seems to be more Cambridge based editions of the KJV than in the past [some based on a Cambridge Concord edition and some on a Cambridge Pitt Minion edition]. Sometimes they still have a mixture of readings.

Some Zondervan and Hendrickson KJV editions are based on the 1873 Cambridge edition of Scrivener, that has a large number of differences from other typical KJV editions.

 

[Rippon]

No brother...that is NOT nonsense. I will clarify though that I was referring to the KJV in its most common current form (more often than not I would think that to be the 1769 edition).

It is indeed nonsensical to believe that the KJV of any stripe is in no need of improvement. All the KJV revisers would be against you on that one too.

If the Word of God is a "mortal" work then GOD HELP US.

The original autographs were supernaturally inspired and superintended by God --not a translation. Although certainly the Lord has used them for the extention of His Kingdom.

The Bible is a supernatural book Inspired, Protected, and Preserved by God's divine power and hand. I take that as true by faith. I will one day go to heaven believing that

As I said before no translation is perfect,needing no improvement. That is delusional. Only the original autographs have the qualities that you ascribe to the KJV.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

My post was not really that much longer than some of your posts.

Upon reflection...you are quite correct and I apologize brother. I'll be willing to bet though that you are a far better and faster typist than I am. (I wish I had applied myself more in High School typing all those many years ago!:laugh

Anyway...I am sorry about that!

bro.Greg

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

About your List...

My post was not really that much longer than some of your posts.

Most of its length was actually listing specific examples of where the 1769 Oxford differs from today's varying KJV editions.

I could probably have listed over 200 examples if I listed all the ones that could be found in my 400 pages of differences in KJV editions that I have compiled.

Do you have a website or webpage and is the list you mention here in published form for comparison purposes? I might just like to have a copy of it if it is available.

bro.Greg

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Briefly...my answer is...

it is indeed nonsensical to believe that the KJV of any stripe is in no need of improvement. All the KJV revisers would be against you on that one too.

I disagree

The original autographs were supernaturally inspired and superintended by God --not a translation. although certanly the Lord has used them for the extention of His Kingdom.

I agree

As I said before no translation is perfect,needing no improvement. That is delusional. Only the original autographs have the qualities that you ascribe to the KJV.

I disagree...no..I am not!.....and....I don't believe that the KJV is inspired...I only believe that the perfection of the originals was protected and transmitted through the ages by the providential work of preservation that God has performed and still does as work continues to translate His Word into different human languages. I just believe we have it in english as He wanted it to be and we need no more english language translations,versions,paraphrases,etc. The KJV is enough (in my opinion)

Bro.Greg:flower: (have a nice day Bro.Rippon)