Translating The KJV

[Thermodynamics]

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May I ask you why conservative scholars do not cite the KJV as a primary translation in their works?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

When I made my observation I did not have conservative (or liberal) Bible scholars, or the people who run wack-job websites in mind. My observation is on the lack of exposure to varied forms of English literature on the part of the general public.

In a growing number of fast food restaurants in the US the customer is expected to point to a picture of what he/she wishes to order, then the person taking the order will push a button on the cash register that has a matching picture. Given that sad state of affairs, I believe it is only a matter of time before we see a "Bible translation" in comic book format with lots of pictures and very few words.

Before you quoted me did you even read all of what you cut from my comments? Did you somehow not notice where I said:

"the problem that many (but I don't mean to suggest all or even most) people have?"

 

[franklinmonroe]

DHK, your response to my post only focused on my second statement and ignored my question.

You quoted scripture (like 1 Peter 1:21) but followed it with a personal conviction ("I believe that they knew when they were moved") which is not explicitly supported by the verse. Do not misunderstand me, I believe in inspiration. Also, I agree that when prophets wrote "Thus saith the Lord" (and similiar indications) they knew that what followed were the words of God. However, I'm not convinced that ALL the writers knew ALL the time. There, that addresses the second part.

Now, this has to do with the previous question: But even if they did know, the fact is that the native Greek in which most of the NT was styled does not correspond with your statement that the words of God "ought to sound like they are elevated".

So I ask again: Why should translations be in elevated language when much of the original text was given in a common vernacular?

 

[DHK]

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.

No, Tyndale desired to put the Bible into the English language, period. Before that time it was in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, languages that the common person could not read. Even Tyndale's translation was not guaranteed to be an easy reading for the common person--just much easier than a foreign language.

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.

Have you ever read the requirements that the Jews set for themselves before they would even consider a book worthy for acceptance into the canon of the OT.

It had to be written as Scripture, with the mark of God upon it. Fables like Bel and the Dragon, even if written in Hebrew and the accepted time period would have been automatically excluded because they don't even sound like Scripture. They don't have that authoritative voice of God in them. The commands that you quote are easy to understand. "Thou shalt not kill," is easy to understand in any translation. It is God's command. It is authoritative. It comes from the hand of God.

Fables like Bel and the Dragon don't.

 

[DHK]

So I ask again: Why should translations be in elevated language when much of the original text was given in a common vernacular?

I think you answered your own question. I am not saying an elevated language as in an older language. Jesus spoke in parables. That is an exception to what I am trying to say. There he is making things as easy as possible to understand.
But most of the Bible is not like that. When the prophets speak they speak with an air of authority. When the Apostles speak they also speak with an air of authority. If it wasn't so then Paul's rebuke to the Corinthians (1Cor.14; 5:1-5; etc.) would be meaningless. Statements such as "Deliver such an one over to Satan," is not conversational English. Paul spoke with the authority of God. For the most part the Bible is a manual, a guidebook, instructions in how to live. That is not conversation. It goes back to what you agreed with previously: "Thus saith the Lord." It is God speaking to man. The very words of God are by nature elevated above the words of man.

 

[TC]

No, Tyndale desired to put the Bible into the English language, period. Before that time it was in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, languages that the common person could not read. Even Tyndale's translation was not guaranteed to be an easy reading for the common person--just much easier than a foreign language.

You are wrong here. Tyndale wrote in the common English of the day. His work was for the uneducated and not for the high faluten priests that claimed that Latin was the language of heaven. Many of the KJV translators were high church Anglicans that had a deep love for the Latin language. So, they took much of Tyndale's work and Latinized it - making it harder to read. I also have Tyndale's NT, so I know what his goals in translating were.

 

[DHK]

You are wrong here. Tyndale wrote in the common English of the day. His work was for the uneducated and not for the high faluten priests that claimed that Latin was the language of heaven. Many of the KJV translators were high church Anglicans that had a deep love for the Latin language. So, they took much of Tyndale's work and Latinized it - making it harder to read. I also have Tyndale's NT, so I know what his goals in translating were.

Let's just say that it was an accurate translation, as accurate as he could make it, and not something like a paraphrase--for the "semi-literate."

The first Baptist Church I ever attended after I was saved used Kenneth Taylor's "Living Bible" because the other translations were too difficult too understand. What a disgrace!

 

[Rippon]

In a growing number of fast food restaurants in the US the customer is expected to point to a picture of what he/she wishes to order, then the person taking the order will push a button on the cash register that has a matching picture.

The above has absolutely nothing to do with your contention that many people don't use the KJV because of poor education.

Before you quoted me did you even read all of what you cut from my comments? Did you somehow not notice where I said:

"the problem that many (but I don't mean to suggest all or even most) people have?"

In my post I had indeed quoted the above. But you still haven't a leg to stand on. Your theory is bogus.

 

[Rippon]

No, Tyndale desired to put the Bible into the English language, period. Even Tyndale's translation was not guaranteed to be an easy reading for the common person--just much easier than a foreign language.

Tyndale, like Luther before him, put the New Testament in the vernacular. He wrote in simple, clear language which the average person could understand -- that's what any competent translation intends to do. He used ordinary words and sentences which common folks could understand.

I have started a number of threads in the past demonstrating that Tyndale's translation sounds more modern than the KJV. Tyndale didn't Latinize his translation to the much greater degree that the KJV revisers did. He kept it simple, direct and clear.

When a New Testament translation tries to use an elevated, or dignified style -- they are mistranslating because the original was written in koine Greek -- a style which was much less ornate than classical Greek.

I don't think a ploughboy of Tyndale's time would have been a member of the literati. Neither would a mechanic of contemporary society be into literary elegance. Lofty language is not heart-language.

 

[Jim1999]

The KJV was intended to be read in every Church of England lecturn. That's why they were chained in every church at that time. It was the common English.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[EdSutton]

The KJV was intended to be read in every Church of England lecturn. That's why they were chained in every church at that time. It was the common English.

Cheers,

Jim

Don't necessarily know about the KJV, exactly, as to being chained to the pulpit, but the "Great Bible" (GRT) which was the first of the "Authorized" version was chained and was often referred to as the "chained Bible," if my memory is correct.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

The KJV ... It was the common English.

It was commonly understood English -- but it wasn't in the common language of the early 17th century. It is common knowledge though, that KJV-speak was written in a dated and somewhat old-fashioned form of English. The revisers tried to spruce-it-up by using more ornate phraselogy.