Featured When is revision necessary?

Since I am KJVP, I'll use it as an example. If my daughters are reading it, and don't know what a word means, they can ask me. When the time comes that a parent cannot explain what a word means to their child, it is time for a revision.

I'm not anti-revisionist, per se, but I am off the opinion that revisions should be few and far between.

Someone brought up the example of Mark Twain's books. We still read them easily. Shakespeare, however, we cannot read unless it is "translated" to modern English, or at the very least has modern spelling.

The KJV had been updated to modern spellings, and I'm ok with that. Without getting into a "KJVO" debate, I don't think the KJV needs anymore revisions until the language has changed so much to make the original unreadable.

Now, if a translation has a goal to stay up to date on the language, it would honestly have to be revised every five tears or so.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

A revision is only needed when a word used has lost all of its original meaning to a modern reader. For example, the KJV uses the word "corn" for grain (probably wheat). Therefor, the KJV needs to be revised, and the word "corn" needs to be replaced with the word "grain". The NKJV does this.

But, this is not the reason for new revisions and new translation. We have a generation of ungodly men who want to change the Bible, not merely keep it modern language. Like the HCSB which changes "Jews" to "Jewish leaders", changes non-Jews to "Jews", and LORD to Yahweh.

 

The Hebrew "YHWH" appears about 6000 times in the OT and our English translations usually follow the tradition of translating it "LORD" all in caps. Some modern translations (HCSB) translate the Hebrew "YHWH" as Yahweh, believed to render it as it would have been pronounced.

Old Spanish Customs (doing it the old way) has merit because if does not derail common understanding. But when something is wrong, such as translating monogenes as begotten, following tradition and putting the error in the revision is without merit.

 

The chance of יהוה being correctly pronounced Yahweh approaches zero. The New Testament and the Jewish practice before Christ was to translate יהוה to Lord. The HCSB's translation of Yahweh results from Dispensation bias, ignorance, and sycophancy, not legitimacy. If יהוה should be translated to Yahweh, then you should criticize the HCSB for not doing this for most occurrences of יהוה.

Dispensationalists are hypocrites. They change LORD to Yahweh, but they they won't change Jews to Yehudi.

 

The OT in Hebrew had YHWH, not LORD. Not sure how you know YHWH is not pronounced Yahweh, but other scholars think it was. The KJV had Jehovah in a few places, and pretty much everyone not in the KJVO camp agrees that was a mistaken translation.

 

How is known that יהוה is pronounced Yahweh? It could be three or even four syllables, how do you know it's two? Can you answer? You don't know. How does anyone know?

How do you know which vowels to insert? How does anyone know?

How do you know the letters יהוה correspond the sounds of YHWH? You think in three thousand years (2000 of which, Hebrew was a dead language) that the original pronunciation of these letters have surely have been preserved? It took nearly 2000 years since Christ to reach the consensus that YHWH is right. Sorry, that's not very compelling to me

Jehovah can be defended as Tradition, an anglicized (We're English, not Hebrews) and fleshed out version of IHVH (JHVH).

LORD can be defended as the translation of choice of the Apostles and The Jews before Christ. If it's good enough for them, you know it's good enough for you and our translations.

But, Yahweh cannot be defended. It's a word born in anti-Christian bigotry and promoted by Dispensationalists and others of anti-Christian doctrine. Why don't they call Jews Yehudi, if not for the sake of being glaring hypocrites?

 

Hi Smyth, first you say Yahweh is not how its pronounced and now you say you do not know. Fair enough, I know some scholars think it is.
Next you appear to refer to Apostles as accepting the Septuagint version of YHWH, but some read the OT in Hebrew. Certainly non-Greek speaking Jews read YHWH, so your claim that LORD was the translation of choice seems weak.
Next you claim Yahweh is born of anti-Christian bigotry, but you provided no source for the claim.

Provincialism hinders needed revisions in English translations.

 

That's not the only reason, but it is the main one. I agree with you.

I say let the KJV in its largely Benjamin Blayney form alone.

Revisions of Bible translations has nothing to do with the KJV. Most versions really have nothing to do with the KJV.

 

You, we, no one has no idea what Jews read in Hebrew texts before Christ. All we know is that The Apostles and the Septuagint used LORD, and so we should as well. Wait. We know one other thing, Yahweh is almost certainly wrong.

The pronunciation of Yahweh is generally credited to a 19th-century German Wilhelm Gesenius. He held some very unchristian views. And, in the 20th century, his pronunciation was spread by Christians who hold some unchristian doctrines. It's championed today by people who like it over Jehovah because it's not anglicized, but is pseudo-judaized.

 

Hi Smyth, thanks for responding with clarity.

We know that the Jews read the Torah out loud, and when they came to YHWH, they said something. Not Jehovah, and not Adonai. The practice of saying Adonai for Yahweh apparently started about the third century BC. So for about a 1000 years, the pre-Christ Jews probably said Yahweh.

We do not know the pronunciation Yahweh is wrong. Many think it is right.

 

There are millions of possible pronunciations of the four constants with added vowels. The chance that some 19th-century German nut (not even a Jew) figured out the right one is practically zero. When you say "Jews probably..." you're just deceiving yourself. That's what makes the use of the word Yahweh so evil, that people who use it are defying the example of the Apostles and are confidant in something that isn't right. At least people who use Jehovah know it's probably wrong. And, at least people who use LORD are following New Testament.

 

You are really out there Smyth.

 

Thank you. I went back and made a couple of changes. Maybe I should start taking the time to proofread. Or, maybe you'll do that for me?

 

There were no spelling or grammatical errors in that second sentence of which I posted a part of. It is just unconscionable.

 

YHWH is thought to be consonants by some, vowels by others and "vowel-consonants" by a third group.
Thus the tetragram needs no added vowels to discern the pronunciation. Yahweh and Yah-oo-ah are usually offered as the transliteration and phonetic version.