Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment! Algorithm free!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereChristian Forum › KJV All Over Again
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) KJV All Over Again (Read 10,583 times)
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
KJV All Over Again
Feb 5th, 2009 at 2:42pm
Print Post  
I've always considered the KJV one of the best "word-for-word" translations, probably second only to the NASB.  The down-side in my mind has always been the lack of relevance of language.  Simply put, language changes and we just don't speak King James English anymore.  Worse, the people around us don't speak it.  We can become acclimated to the language as it is part of our "church culture," but tell someone who is not a Christian to "suffer the little children" and I wonder what goes through his/her mind?  Besides that are the minor but real mistakes (like the translation of "unicorn" instead of "ox").

Although the text is revered by many, it is the message that is more important than the words themselves (which are a translation of the original words; Paul did not read KJV).

My opinion, however, has changed lately.  I picked up U.S. News's Secrets of the Bible while waiting an airport.  One of the articles in it was on the translation of the KJV, and I quote:

"The end result, amazingly, for a process that began as a government initiative, that deliberately involved as wide a range of political and cultural views as possible, was the greatest and perhaps the most influential book ever written in English....It is a much greater piece of writing than many of the originals it was transcribing.  One Victorian (atheist) described the Gospels as apparently 'concocted by illiterate, half-starved visionaries in some dark corner of a Graeco-Syrian slum.'  The King James Bible is not like that; its qualities are royal, governmental, authoritative, those of majesty, grace, stateliness, scale, power....The language the translators used was not the language that was current at the time.  It is, if anything, consciously archaic, reminiscent of the sort of language that would have been spoken by their grandfathers, as a kind of subliminal association with the voices of distant remembered authority.  But it isn't a precise reproduction of antique phraseology.  It is more, in fact, a dragging of English toward the condition of the Greek and Hebrew from which they were translating.  In its ordering of words and its constant parallel repetitions of phrases and half phrases, the language of the King James Bible would have been as strange to the native English speakers in 1611 as it is to us today.  Its way of conveying the Holy Word has a sort of double strangeness, both ancient and foreign, because, paradoxically perhaps, the great truths, however much they might penetrate your mind and heart, need to be heard from that sort of distance.  That form of rhetoric is necessary for holy texts because the subject of this book is not everyday life or the ordinariness we know but the way in which the extraordinary can erupt into the world.  That is something the 17th-century translators knew in their bones but that 20th-century translators largely forgot.  The King James Bible is all about access to greatness--and its language is the vehicle that allows that to happen." (pp. 82-83)

Frankly, in his attempt to praise the KJV over others, interviewee Adam Nicolson simply reveals the not-so-subtle manipulation that was involved in the translation process.  Is this an "accurate word-for-word translation" divested of theological and political agendas?  Apparently not!
« Last Edit: Feb 5th, 2009 at 2:50pm by Mercy For All »  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fair-minded know it all
LNF Party Leader
***
Offline

fair-minded conservative
leaning independent

Posts: 4,851
Joined: Feb 17th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: KJV All Over Again
Reply #1 - Feb 6th, 2009 at 8:01pm
Print Post  
Interesting. I love the KJV, some passages just don't sound right to me in other versions. But I still agree overall with your 1st assessment.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
M_Paul
LNF Staffer3
**
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 78
Joined: Oct 26th, 2008
Re: KJV All Over Again
Reply #2 - Feb 22nd, 2009 at 5:52pm
Print Post  
The KJV is based on a theory of translation known as “literary equivalent.” This theory looks for a one to one correspondence of words between languages, or when that is not possible, the closest literary equivalent.

The modern translations are based on a theory of translation known as “dynamic equivalent.” This theory first looks to what a passage actually means according to scholarly interpretation and then finds equivalent words to reflect that meaning.

Those who favor the KJV say it is a more “literal” translation, because it tries to represent what is being said according to principles of linguistics. Those who favor the modern translations say they are more “literal,” because they represent what is literally meant. Do most modern scholars prefer dynamic equivalence theory, as an advanced degree is required to understand it, which enhances their prestige?

The New Testament of the KJV is based on the majority representation of the Greek manuscripts, which were copied by hand. The modern versions are based on what is known as the critical text, (often referred to as the CT). Two scholars from Cambridge, Westscott and Hort, put forth a theory in the 19th century on how two very old manuscripts were the best witness of the NT and held that more than 90% of all manuscript evidence had to be thrown out. They used a chart noting how the manuscripts could be grouped into families and alleged descendant manuscripts were based on a revision error. They noted that as the manuscripts were studied on the new theory, the evidence would be found that fills in the chart.

Although we are still waiting for that evidence to appear, and in fact, some scholars have noted that the evidence simply contradicts Westcott and Hort, most scholars base their discussion of the original text as if the evidence had been found. The chart used for the theory resembles the chart Darwin used in chp. 4 of Origen of the Species, on how species came to be, that noted actual evidence would come later on further investigation. Both of the Cambridge scholars endorsed the theory of evolution, and in fact, there are a number of questionable facts concerning their background. In fact, there were other textual scholars in the 19th century with much greater learning and experience than Westcott and Hort, who asserted that the two manuscripts they were depending on were utterly horrible specimens of the text, with endless copyist errors that render them completely worthless as a witness to the text. In fact, in most instances of variation on the text, the two manuscripts do not agree with each other. However, do most modern scholars favor the Critical Text, because an advanced degree is required to understand it, which enhances their prestige?

No one can deny that the KJV is anointed. The impact it has had on the world is simply incredible. Of course, it is not inspired – a translation cannot meet the criterion set in Scripture for a writing to be upheld as inspired. But its anointing is unquestioned. And that anointing is powerful. If I read verses from the KJV over and over, it has a strong effect on me. It makes me love the Word of God, such as I can never experience with the modern versions.

I often read the Bible in Hebrew or Greek. If I need a translation, I use the KJV. If ever I have trouble with understanding the old language, I use the NKJV. It uses a literary equivalent theory of translation and a majority manuscript NT text. However, it makes unnecessary changes from the KJV at times, and I do not like that at all. And, I can never experience any anointing on it.

Unfortunately, the issue of which is the best translations usually leads to debate that becomes very, very ugly, and it is amazing how much dishonesty is involved, commonly from Christian scholars, who one would never dream lack integrity. But they have the most at stake… as the modern translations are what enhance their prestige.

However, trying to rationally discuss this issue always seems to just break down.
« Last Edit: Feb 22nd, 2009 at 8:45pm by M_Paul »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
M_Paul
LNF Staffer3
**
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 78
Joined: Oct 26th, 2008
Re: KJV All Over Again
Reply #3 - Feb 22nd, 2009 at 6:13pm
Print Post  
In considering translation, it is well to note that modern literary convention is employed. Ancient writing did not have paragraphs for instance. Literature was formatted according to parallelism in thought units, and in sentences and overall structure as well. Although these literary techniques have fallen from use, they were arranged in highly artistic fashion in the Bible, so that it is obvious that the writing is at the level of genius. However, if someone tries to force modern literary conventions on Scripture, he can make it look stupid in doing so if he wants to. This is a very, very old game used to discredit the Bible, as the vast majority of people have not studied ancient literary techniques and their ignorance can be easily abused.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fair-minded know it all
LNF Party Leader
***
Offline

fair-minded conservative
leaning independent

Posts: 4,851
Joined: Feb 17th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: KJV All Over Again
Reply #4 - Feb 22nd, 2009 at 9:00pm
Print Post  
Great info M Paul. thanks
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: KJV All Over Again
Reply #5 - Feb 22nd, 2009 at 10:29pm
Print Post  
M_Paul wrote on Feb 22nd, 2009 at 5:52pm:
The New Testament of the KJV is based on the majority representation of the Greek manuscripts, which were copied by hand. The modern versions are based on what is known as the critical text, (often referred to as the CT). Two scholars from Cambridge, Westscott and Hort, put forth a theory in the 19th century on how two very old manuscripts were the best witness of the NT and held that more than 90% of all manuscript evidence had to be thrown out. They used a chart noting how the manuscripts could be grouped into families and alleged descendant manuscripts were based on a revision error. They noted that as the manuscripts were studied on the new theory, the evidence would be found that fills in the chart.


To say that "modern translations" are based on two documents is simply incorrect.  I'm not sure where you're getting that information from.  Most modern translations are translated from more copies and older copies than the KJV.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: KJV All Over Again
Reply #6 - Feb 22nd, 2009 at 10:30pm
Print Post  
M_Paul wrote on Feb 22nd, 2009 at 6:13pm:
In considering translation, it is well to note that modern literary convention is employed. Ancient writing did not have paragraphs for instance. Literature was formatted according to parallelism in thought units, and in sentences and overall structure as well. Although these literary techniques have fallen from use, they were arranged in highly artistic fashion in the Bible, so that it is obvious that the writing is at the level of genius. However, if someone tries to force modern literary conventions on Scripture, he can make it look stupid in doing so if he wants to. This is a very, very old game used to discredit the Bible, as the vast majority of people have not studied ancient literary techniques and their ignorance can be easily abused.


Hebrew and Greek also didn't use punctuation.  Hebrew originally didn't include vowels.  Was it a mistake to include both in the KJV?

How about the obvious errors in KJV--like the "unicorn" and the "cockatrice"?
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: KJV All Over Again
Reply #7 - Feb 22nd, 2009 at 10:35pm
Print Post  
M_Paul wrote on Feb 22nd, 2009 at 5:52pm:
No one can deny that the KJV is anointed. The impact it has had on the world is simply incredible. Of course, it is not inspired – a translation cannot meet the criterion set in Scripture for a writing to be upheld as inspired. But its anointing is unquestioned. And that anointing is powerful. If I read verses from the KJV over and over, it has a strong effect on me. It makes me love the Word of God, such as I can never experience with the modern versions.


How do you evaluate "anointing"?  It's a bit of an "ace in the back pocket" that anyone can subjectively claim.  I know the Bible was not "written in KJV."  I also know it's the message that's important; not the English words.

You likely love it because it's familiar and you've known it all your life.  Most of the verses I have memorized I have memorized from the KJV, yet I have not the same loyalty to that one translation, nor to any other one translation.  Why do you suppose that is?

Quote:
I often read the Bible in Hebrew or Greek. If I need a translation, I use the KJV. If ever I have trouble with understanding the old language, I use the NKJV. It uses a literary equivalent theory of translation and a majority manuscript NT text. However, it makes unnecessary changes from the KJV at times, and I do not like that at all. And, I can never experience any anointing on it.


Again, the "feeling of anointing."  Do you think that was imparted by the translators in their motivation to use "majestic tone" in the translation?  It's funny, but I know of seminary professors that teach directly from Greek text, translating on the fly, and it comes across most similar to an NIV translation.

Quote:
Unfortunately, the issue of which is the best translations usually leads to debate that becomes very, very ugly, and it is amazing how much dishonesty is involved, commonly from Christian scholars, who one would never dream lack integrity. But they have the most at stake… as the modern translations are what enhance their prestige.


Like saying that new translations are based on only two texts?
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fair-minded know it all
LNF Party Leader
***
Offline

fair-minded conservative
leaning independent

Posts: 4,851
Joined: Feb 17th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: KJV All Over Again
Reply #8 - Feb 23rd, 2009 at 6:52am
Print Post  
Yeah, I don't know much about the scholarship involved but the annointing
thing does sound very subjective.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
M_Paul
LNF Staffer3
**
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 78
Joined: Oct 26th, 2008
Re: KJV All Over Again
Reply #9 - Feb 23rd, 2009 at 8:31am
Print Post  
Indeed, the modern translations are not just based on two manuscripts. However, Vatincannus and Sinnaticus are upheld as the two best, but they often disagree. There are a number of rules the scholars use for the CT. They start with these two manuscripts, which is the core of their position. Then, they consider many other manuscripts for their final determinations. However, these two are the primary force of the theory and the other manuscripts utilized have no real force but for their revision effect or conflict resolution. Still, 90% of the manuscript evidence is thrown out based on a theory with promised evidence that never developed.

I was using the term "anointed" as it is commonly used in the Christian community. For instance, most Christians hold Billy Graham was anointed... but it is somewhat subjective. However, Westcott and Hort were part of the Oxford movement. They worshiped Mary. From the moment the KJV came out the Catholics feared the effect it would have on believers as a Protestant Bible. And Protestants hold the Bible is ultimate authority, not the Pope. From the beginning Catholics looked for a way to tear down this Bible. Eventually, they found allies from Protestant scholars, who were looking for a way to enhance their prestige. (The Oxford Movement occurred in England, and emphasized a return to Catholicism).

It appears the NASB deliberately tries to degrade the Word of God. It deliberately tries to make the expression seem unattractive. And the NASB uses "dynamic equivalence." For instance in the Hebrew, wherein it is stated we should worship God "in the beauty of holiness," the NASB changes it to "in holy attire." The translators believed that the people who wrote the Bible could not have been so sophisticated as to think in terms of worshiping in "the beauty of holiness," so they must have meant in clothes that were holy. Therefore, they changed the wording to make these verses reflect just how dumb the people really were, which then, in the opinion of the translators, is more literal.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereChristian Forum › KJV All Over Again

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
A1 News Page
David Limbaugh
Political Frog
Conservatives Directory
President Trump Approval Poll
Presidential Party Election Poll
News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules