Translating The KJV

[Rippon]

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

Every line of mine was baloney? No, I just voiced opinions which differ with your views.

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!).

Well, since you think the KJV represents no problem as far as its English goes -- a much newer version such as the NIV identified as being in need of an update unsettles you. That's an understandable move for you to take.

It's just that common sense isn't on your side.

I have had adult Christian students here tell me that the NIV sounds too old-fashioned to them. That's why I give them the NIrV or NLTse.

My question about the Constitution in no way equated it with the Scriptures. The parallel is there though.

No parallel is there. There is no comparision. Preserving an ancient form of English for the sake of your tradition is problematic though. I guess you differ with William Tyndale's principles AF.

All translations, in any language, need to be regularly updated. That's just a fact. And you have to realize that English Bible versions are used by non-native English speakers too.

 

[DHK]

All translations, in any language, need to be regularly updated. That's just a fact. And you have to realize that English Bible versions are used by non-native English speakers too.

Just a thought:
I think folks in general need to update their language skills and other educational skills in general. We have high school graduates (both in Canada and the U.S.) graduating with a grade five level of reading in comprehension. Many of them cannot comprehend an instruction manual such as the instructions to a VCR, digital camera, cell phone, etc. They either learn through experimentation, or someone else has to do it for them. Reading the manual is too difficult.

When it comes to Math, basic math skills are atrocious. If the till wasn't computerized most high school students would be lost in their arithmetic. My wife bought a coffee and donut ($2.63) and was given $13.37 in change from a twenty dollar bill, just a couple days ago. It's a good thing she counts her change or she would be five dollars short.

What if the till wasn't computerized? Doing mental arithmetic poses a real problem for many. Most of them can't figure out the GST on any given product.

Concerning language, parts of the Bible (such as Psalm 23, The Lord's Prayer, The Beatitudes) are required reading in University literature classes. So is Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress," as an example of one of the greatest allegories ever written. We need to motivate people to read literature. We have a society that has been "dumb-downed" educationally.

I see the need of using something like the NKJV or something comparable for immigrants or those whose mother tongue is not English. But I also see the need for people's educational skills in subjects such as English to be upgraded. The KJV ought not to be drudgery for the average English speaking person.

 

[sag38]

Funny thing though DHK is that I was not taught KJV english in grammar school, high school, nor in college. I was taught conversational english. Almost every textbook I read was in a conversational form except for when I took english lit.

 

[DHK]

Funny thing though DHK is that I was not taught KJV english in grammar school, high school, nor in college. I was taught conversational english. Almost every textbook I read was in a conversational form except for when I took english lit.

Most high schools that I am acquainted with introduce their students to Shakespeare in at least the last two years of high school. I remember my daughter studying it in grade twelve.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Most high schools that I am acquainted with introduce their students to Shakespeare in at least the last two years of high school. I remember my daughter studying it in grade twelve.

We started in 8th with Romeo and Juliette, then looked at Chaucer in 9th. Tale of Two Cities in 10th, Beowulf in 11th and The Count of Monte Cristo in 12th.

I hated Beowulf, Tale was boring, R and J was too much drama, Chaucer was "interesting" The Count my fave!

 

[EdSutton]

When it comes to Math, basic math skills are atrocious. If the till wasn't computerized most high school students would be lost in their arithmetic. My wife bought a coffee and donut ($2.63) and was given $13.37 in change from a twenty dollar bill, just a couple days ago. It's a good thing she counts her change or she would be five dollars short.

What if the till wasn't computerized? Doing mental arithmetic poses a real problem for many. Most of them can't figure out the GST on any given product.

Somebody still needs to check the programming on this computerized till. A $2.63 coffee and donut out of a twenty would leave $17.37 in change. That would make it four dollars short, not five!

FTR, off the top of my head, I have absolutely no idea what the acronym "GST' might stand for, apart from Greenwich Standard Time, which would appear to have no bearing on this thread. Would you mind explaining what this acronym actually stands for, given there are more than 200 possibilities? Thanks,

Ed

 

[DHK]

FTR, off the top of my head, I have absolutely no idea what the acronym "GST' might stand for, apart from Greenwich Standard Time, which would appear to have no bearing on this thread.
Ed

General Sales Tax. (Here it is 5%. )

 

[sag38]

Yes, I studied some Shakesphere, Chaucer, etc. However, I don't speak that language. I don't use that language in my every day life. My congregation doesn't speak that way.

 

[DHK]

Yes, I studied some Shakesphere, Chaucer, etc. However, I don't speak that language. I don't use that language in my every day life. My congregation doesn't speak that way.

I am not sure that I know of any generation that the Bible was put in "the language of my every day life." It was meant to be put in the language that we speak, in the language we understand. But the very way that the Bible is written is not "the language of my every day life." Kenneth Taylor tried to do that and ended up with something that sounds rather profane.

By nature the words of God are elevated above the thoughts of man.
And they ought to sound like they are elevated. I am not justifying the use of Shakespearean English. I dare say that you speak the language of the NKJV either, or even the ESV. Yes it is English, as the KJV is. One is easier to understand than the other. But the Bible, in and of itself, is not conversational English.

 

[Thermodynamics]

In my opinion the problem that many (but I don't mean to suggest all or even most) people have with the KJV is rooted more in a poor education than in any changes that have taken place in the English language. People are simply not exposed to enough writing from various periods to give them the skills needed to read and understand the KJV or Shakespere or most of the other classics of English.

While English has changed over the last 400 years, it has not changed so much that a person with a modest education and a willingness to learn a few facts shouldn't be able to sort things out.

I think that the desire to dumb things down for each new generation only results in even poorer results for the generation that follows, which of course results in the need to dumb things down further. We should expect more of our students, parents and teachers.

I am not suggesting that any revision or new translation of the Bible is wrong or misguided, but the KJV does occupy a position that no other English translation can claim. It has remained in common useage for 400 years, it has given the language more figures of speech than any other collection of writings except those of William Shakespere and it is a treasure of the English language. I believe that to cast it aside because it requires a little effort is a grave mistake that our society would be the poorer for.

 

[sag38]

Here we go. It's an old KJVO tactic. Let's insult the educational level of those who do not agree. Go ahead, insult away. It really elevates your position to belittle those who disagree with you.

 

[DHK]

Here we go. It's an old KJVO tactic. Let's insult the educational level of those who do not agree. Go ahead, insult away. It really elevates your position to belittle those who disagree with you.

I don't think that it is an insult to say this:

I am not suggesting that any revision or new translation of the Bible is wrong or misguided, but the KJV does occupy a position that no other English translation can claim. It has remained in common useage for 400 years, it has given the language more figures of speech than any other collection of writings except those of William Shakespere and it is a treasure of the English language. I believe that to cast it aside because it requires a little effort is a grave mistake that our society would be the poorer for.

Rather it is a good summary of the situation at hand.
Just my opinion.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... By nature the words of God are elevated above the thoughts of man. And they ought to sound like they are elevated. ...

How do you square the above statement with the mostly informal Greek style in which large portions the New Testament were originally written? Your idea requires that all the writers were aware at all times that they were recording the words of God; in some cases (Philemon, for example) I find that hard to accept.

 

[DHK]

How do you square the above statement with the mostly informal Greek style in which large portions the New Testament were originally written? Your idea requires that all the writers were aware at all times that they were recording the words of God; in some cases (Philemon, for example) I find that hard to accept.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--First, I believe that they knew when they were moved (bourne along) by the Holy Spirit)--as a river carries a piece of wood down the water. It was the Holy Spirit moving them, speaking through them, giving them the words to say, and yet using their personalities and vocabularies at the same time. Still, they were God's Words. It was still: "Thus saith the Lord." It still had the authority of God behind it, not the conversation of a man.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
--This promise was written to the disciples of Jesus. He promised them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL truth. Not one of us are led into ALL truth. That is why we have so many disagreements; we are not led into all truth. However, when penning the very words of God, the Holy Spirit led them into ALL truth. Not even one jot or tittle escaped them; not one iota (smallest Greek letter) or one iota-subscript (smallest part of a letter) would escape them. God would lead them into all truth--perfection. It would be God's truth. And they would know when they were writing it.

Other Apostles recognized it:

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[EdSutton]

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--First, I believe that they knew when they were moved (bourne along) by the Holy Spirit)--as a river carries a piece of wood down the water. It was the Holy Spirit moving them, speaking through them, giving them the words to say, and yet using their personalities and vocabularies at the same time. Still, they were God's Words. It was still: "Thus saith the Lord." It still had the authority of God behind it, not the conversation of a man.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
--This promise was written to the disciples of Jesus. He promised them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL truth. Not one of us are led into ALL truth. That is why we have so many disagreements; we are not led into all truth. However, when penning the very words of God, the Holy Spirit led them into ALL truth. Not even one jot or tittle escaped them; not one iota (smallest Greek letter) or one iota-subscript (smallest part of a letter) would escape them. God would lead them into all truth--perfection. It would be God's truth. And they would know when they were writing it.

Other Apostles recognized it:

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Sometimes this was recognized accurately; sometimes it was not. Also, just because something was penned by a Prophet or an Apostle did not necessarily qualify it as Scripture. Witness Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, perhaps a third Epistle to the Corinthians, and several OT accounts of something being recorded in a book that today, is not even known about, except that it once existed.

Ed

 

[TC]

I am not sure that I know of any generation that the Bible was put in "the language of my every day life." It was meant to be put in the language that we speak, in the language we understand. But the very way that the Bible is written is not "the language of my every day life." Kenneth Taylor tried to do that and ended up with something that sounds rather profane.

I disagree and think that William Tyndale desired to put the Bible into the language of everyday life and not a higher language that someone had to educate themselves to read. He wanted the unlearned, uneducated plough boy to be able to read and understand the scriptures in his own language.

By nature the words of God are elevated above the thoughts of man.
And they ought to sound like they are elevated. I am not justifying the use of Shakespearean English. I dare say that you speak the language of the NKJV either, or even the ESV. Yes it is English, as the KJV is. One is easier to understand than the other. But the Bible, in and of itself, is not conversational English.

Deut. 30:10-14
Deu 30:10 if thou shalt obey the voice of Jehovah thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.
Deu 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.
Deu 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
Deu 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
Deu 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

As you can see, God made the commandments easy to understand in their own language - not a higher form of the language that they had to educate themselves to read.

 

[Rippon]

I see the need of using something like the NKJV or something comparable for immigrants or those whose mother tongue is not English.

Though the NKJ is an improvement over the KJV -- it too uses a form of unspoken English. It ranks with the ESV in its use of awkward English.

Those whose mother tongue is not English should read the NIrV or NLTse.

The KJV ought not to be drudgery for the average English speaking person.

Why go through all the hoops? Why not read and study a good modern version instead of wading through such an antiquarian work as the KJV?

 

[Rippon]

Double post.

 

[Rippon]

In my opinion the problem that many (but I don't mean to suggest all or even most) people have with the KJV is rooted more in a poor education than in any changes that have taken place in the English language.

The above is pure, unadulterated foolishness. You'll have to come up with a different theory.

May I ask you why conservative scholars do not cite the KJV as a primary translation in their works? Are they poor learners?

Have you ever been to a KJVO website before? Haven't you noticed their poor English (after wading through all thei muti-colored sentences and a plethora of exclamation marks). David Cloud's site is one grand exception.

 

[Thermodynamics]

Here we go. It's an old KJVO tactic. Let's insult the educational level of those who do not agree. Go ahead, insult away. It really elevates your position to belittle those who disagree with you.

1. I am not KJVO.

2. I am not using any tactic, I am just making an observation.

3. It is not my intent to insult or belittle anyone.