Translating The KJV

[Rippon]

Galatians 1:4

My senior Pastor was preaching from his KJV on this passage last Sunday.

In the KJV it reads:

"Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father."

When he preached he did not reference "that he might deliver us..." I asked him later and he said that he preferred the NASB rendering which omits that wording.

On a number of threads in the past some KJV fans (not necessarily KJVO) have been tripped up by the KJV revisers' inclusion of that word. It suggests something indefinite -- it lacks certainty.

Along with the NASB, some other versions (I didn't check them all) did not use the "might" rendering:

TNIV,NLTse,ISV,NRSV,NET Bible, HCSB, ESV, MLB, REB, NJB, Phillips, Weymouth, Darby, Bishop's Bible, Tyndale and Wycliffe translations.

Conclusion? It was an unwarranted insertion which has only caused confusion.

 

[TomVols]

Not defending the KJV, but the subjunctive mood is why I think this in the KJV/NKJV. Perhaps in the best mss this is not the case?

Looking at the NASB, I see the rendering there.

who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father

ESV, TNIV, NIV, et.al. do not have might.

I agree that we should not have to translate an English translation further. Some will always be necessary in order to be more accurate or to bring out nuances English translations miss. But using a revision of a translation that is centuries old is just a bit much.

 

[Baptist4life]

I knew the quote was in reference to the NIV. It's just that Harold and B4L get so upset when it is pointed out that the KJV family is out-of-date -- I wanted them to get some perspective on the fact that even some relatively modern versions are in need of revision.

If the quote had been with regard to the KJV it would have made them take their blood pressure meds -- and then they would have said:"This is an unwarranted attack upon the KJV!"

Will you please stop posting how you THINK I might respond to what you have to say? Only God knows that. Thank you.

 

[Jim1999]

You may also consider the English usage of some words such as might. It has a slightly different usage in England than in North America. Whilst you think might as a remote possibility, we think it more as a permissive possibility. "Might I hold the door for you, Ma'am! You see, that is not a question, but rather a statement of what I intend to do. This understanding goes back a long ways, but I didn't check it for dating.

The KJV is more than just a translation, it is also English as understood in England in 1611 and 1867,,,,,and perhaps even to-day for us older blokes.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rippon]

Will you please stop posting how you THINK I might respond to what you have to say? Only God knows that. Thank you.

Well, unless you've had a change of heart on the subject ,your posts from the past have consistently denied that that the KJV is passe and dated. You have vociferously denounced even that very thought on a regular basis.

So, if you have changed your mind -- that's good to hear!

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I knew the quote was in reference to the NIV. It's just that Harold and B4L get so upset when it is pointed out that the KJV family is out-of-date -- I wanted them to get some perspective on the fact that even some relatively modern versions are in need of revision.

If the quote had been with regard to the KJV it would have made them take their blood pressure meds -- and then they would have said:"This is an unwarranted attack upon the KJV!"

You deliberately misquoted and failed to properly attribute the quote in order to upset someone. Did I understand correctly? Surely not!

 

[EdSutton]

I'll admit to being a bit slow on the uptake, now and again these days, but I do have a few questions.

If the NIV is showing some signs of needing a revision after only 31 years due to the ever-changing aspect of the English language, and the KJ-1611 needed an extensive reworking in the 1760s (which the version thankfully received from the efforts of Drs. Paris and Blaney), after 150 yrs. due to the ever-changing aspect of the English language, why would not there be a need for further revision of any or all these versions today?

It has been > 240 yrs since the revisions of Drs. Paris and Blaney, after all.

May I suggest one might want to check out the TMB, NKJV, AKJ, KJ21, and LIT to only name a few for some fairly good ones, that are much newer, from the perspective of the KJV textual tradition(s).

Especially, one should check out the TMB!

You will find that this version has [GASP!] all 80 of the books that are to be found in the KJ-1611!

May I further suggest one might want to check out the NASB, HCSB, WEB, ISV, NET, and TNIV for some other textual traditions, not especially affiliated with the KJV types, at all.

There is absolutely no reason why this subject should invariably wind-up in some "time-warp" zone, IMO. And where is any objective "fact" that the English Language reached her Zenith and/or Apex in 1769, both as to culture and/or Bible Translation?

Likewise, where is any objective "fact" that the English Language reached her Zenith and/or Apex in 1978, both as to culture and/or Bible Translation?

FTR, there are more than two "Textual Traditions" around, and the attempt at "pigeon-holing" everything in the Biblical translation field into only two such traditions is inaccurate, to say the least.

Ed

 

[rsr]

Conclusion? It was an unwarranted insertion which has only caused confusion.

To defend the translators, the might in question is used as the past tense of may.

Might indicates possibility (whether this is the subjunctive mood proper or the use of a modal auxiliary, I will let the linguists argue). But the possibility is realized within the construction of the sentence: that he might deliver us from this present evil world is dependent upon Who gave himself for our sins; since He did in fact give himself for our sins, then the deliverance is no longer a possibility, but a fact.

To be sure, might used in this sense is foreign to the modern ear and occurs only in formal writing.

Now, it may be well that translators avoid the ambiguity the construction raises for modern readers, but it also is not fair to judge the KJV translators for not anticipating such a change in grammatical usage.

BTW: Questions of this sort are not uncommon; a poster on this board insisted that the should in John 3:16 indicated a lack of definite salvation because he was accustomed to should in its modern usage, not as the past tense of shall.

 

[EdSutton]

To defend the translators, the might in question is used as the past tense of may.

Might indicates possibility (whether this is the subjunctive mood proper or the use of a modal auxiliary, I will let the linguists argue). But the possibility is realized within the construction of the sentence: that he might deliver us from this present evil world is dependent upon Who gave himself for our sins; since He did in fact give himself for our sins, then the deliverance is no longer a possibility, but a fact.

To be sure, might used in this sense is foreign to the modern ear and occurs only in formal writing.

Now, it may be well that translators avoid the ambiguity the construction raises for modern readers, but it also is not fair to judge the KJV translators for not anticipating such a change in grammatical usage.

BTW: Questions of this sort are not uncommon; a poster on this board insisted that the should in John 3:16 indicated a lack of definite salvation because he was accustomed to should in its modern usage, not as the past tense of shall.

"rsr has given an entirely correct usage for 'might,', here."

Signed, Language Cop

 

[Jerome]

If the might construction is so "indefinite", "lacking certainty", "unwarranted", "confusing", or even "foreign" or "formal", why is it repeatedly found in the TNIV?:laugh:

Example:

All Scripture From TNIV . . . . Romans 8:29:"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son,that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters."

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I think that "might" is perfectly good modern English when used that way.

No matter what the translation there is someone somewhere who will misunderstand it.

 

[Trotter]

The point was that the meaning used in the KJV is no longer used in normal conversation, thus leaving the reader with the wrong message. Nothing against the KJV, but the English language has evolved since the KJV was written.

That's the problem with the written word. It is locked into stasis as soon as it is written. The words are frozen as-is, but the language is not. Over time the differences between what was intended by the writing and what is understood from the reading begin to take on different forms, with the longer the period of time creating the larger discrepancy of meaning. Lots of things have changed since the early 1600's, and even the revisions/editions of the KJV have not changed this.

 

[Rippon]

You deliberately misquoted and failed to properly attribute the quote in order to upset someone.

Grow up AF. Would that altered quote really have upset a reasonable person ?
"As time passes and English changes, the KJV we have at present is becoming increasingly dated. If we want a Bible that English speakers around the world can understand, we have to listen to, and respect, the vocabulary they are using today."

That kind of response toward the antiquated KJV was voiced 200 years ago. It's not a radical position.

Yes, Keith Darby said that in reference to the NIV, not the KJV. But if that applies to the relatively modern NIV -- how much more does it apply to the KJV (of whatever incarnation)?

 

[Rippon]

To defend the translators, the might in question is used as the past tense of may.

Might indicates possibility (whether this is the subjunctive mood proper or the use of a modal auxiliary, I will let the linguists argue). But the possibility is realized within the construction of the sentence: that he might deliver us from this present evil world is dependent upon Who gave himself for our sins; since He did in fact give himself for our sins, then the deliverance is no longer a possibility, but a fact.

To be sure, might used in this sense is foreign to the modern ear and occurs only in formal writing.

Now, it may be well that translators avoid the ambiguity the construction raises for modern readers, but it also is not fair to judge the KJV translators for not anticipating such a change in grammatical usage.

BTW: Questions of this sort are not uncommon; a poster on this board insisted that the should in John 3:16 indicated a lack of definite salvation because he was accustomed to should in its modern usage, not as the past tense of shall.

You're perfectly correct RSR. I overstated my case.

 

[Rippon]

If the might construction is so "indefinite", "lacking certainty", "unwarranted", "confusing", or even "foreign" or "formal", why is it repeatedly found in the TNIV?

You are right Jerome. That was a big oversight on my part.

Almost two years ago I had sent in a lot of suggestions for change to the TNIV and this kind of thing I pointed out at the time and had forgotten about it.

"Would" works so much better.

 

[Rippon]

The point was that the meaning used in the KJV is no longer used in normal conversation, thus leaving the reader with the wrong message. Nothing against the KJV, but the English language has evolved since the KJV was written.

That's the problem with the written word. It is locked into stasis as soon as it is written. The words are frozen as-is, but the language is not. Over time the differences between what was intended by the writing and what is understood from the reading begin to take on different forms, with the longer the period of time creating the larger discrepancy of meaning. Lots of things have changed since the early 1600's, and even the revisions/editions of the KJV have not changed this.

That's a good post Trotter. You have been very reasonable -- therefore it will be totally unacceptable to some.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Grow up AF. Would that altered quote really have upset a reasonable person ?

I was just paraphrasing your explanation. You seem to like to trick people.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

The point was that the meaning used in the KJV is no longer used in normal conversation, thus leaving the reader with the wrong message. Nothing against the KJV, but the English language has evolved since the KJV was written.

That's the problem with the written word. It is locked into stasis as soon as it is written. The words are frozen as-is, but the language is not. Over time the differences between what was intended by the writing and what is understood from the reading begin to take on different forms, with the longer the period of time creating the larger discrepancy of meaning. Lots of things have changed since the early 1600's, and even the revisions/editions of the KJV have not changed this.

That is the advantage of the written word. Written language is (almost) never the same is conversational language. The KJV is not "normal conversation". The other versions are not "normal conversation" either. They should not be.

Much of the "language changes" information given in this forum is pure bunk. Written language stabilizes the entire language. There are aspects of language (such as slang) that do change rapidly. None of the major Bible versions are written in the rapidly changing form. They are in standard formal English.

The idea that the NIV needs to be revised because the language has changed is pure nonsense. I don't care who said it.

The specific use of "might" mentioned above is in fact good English today. That is why several modern versions employ it in exactly the same way as the KJV. It is an exceedingly bad example of the intended point.

So I have a couple of questions. How often should we "translate" the U.S. Constitution into current English? Which party would you trust to do it?

 

[Rippon]

Much of the "language changes" information given in this forum is pure bunk.

Thanks for voicing your mistaken opinion.

The idea that the NIV needs to be revised because the language has changed is pure nonsense. I don't care who said it.

That just goes to show how unobservant you are. Your ears aren't to the ground much I guess.

How often should we "translate" the U.S. Constitution into current English?

You're equating the American Constitution to the Word of God?!

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Thanks for voicing your mistaken opinion.




That just goes to show how unobservant you are. Your ears aren't to the ground much I guess.




You're equating the American Constitution to the Word of God?!

Every line of that post was pure boloney there brother Rippon. I am quite familiar with the NIV. I used it for quite some time.

Even though I am rapidly heading for the fossil stage of life I am fairly current on language as I work with college kids (both foreign and domestic) on a daily basis. I read quite a lot. I even do a bit of writing on occasion (I have good editors!).

My question about the Constitution in no way equated it with the Scriptures. The parallel is there though. Should the language of the Constitution be updated frequently? Examine your principles Rippon.