See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 123

Translations and Manuscripts discuss Accuracy of the KJV in the The Scriptures forums; Dear Brethren, It's seems to be a commonly held assumption that the King James, after 400 years, still ranks among the most accurate translations of ...

  1. #1
    BibleCyst's Avatar
    BibleCyst is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    99

    Accuracy of the KJV

    Dear Brethren,

    It's seems to be a commonly held assumption that the King James, after 400 years, still ranks among the most accurate translations of God's Holy Word into English. I'm seeking clarification on this. Google is not helping; too many KJV-Only results.

    Putting aside differences in manuscripts, how accurate is the KJV compared to a translation such as the NASB? Was the KJV translated "word for word," when possible, or does it have characteristics of dynamic equivalence? There's no doubt our knowledge and understanding of Hebrew and Greek has improved since the days of the KJV. If the KJV was translated "word for word" when possible, how does this affect the accuracy of the KJV today?

    Thanks!
    Rich
    Member, PCA
    Baltimore, MD
    1 member(s) found this post helpful.

  2. #2
    Rufus's Avatar
    Rufus is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,381
    Some words in the KJV are archaic (i.e. the meanings changed).
    Sean
    Layman, First Presbyterian Church of Concord New Hampshire (PCA)
    Hillsborough, New Hampshire

  3. #3
    LawrenceU's Avatar
    LawrenceU is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    8,945
    The KJV was done with a very careful sense of accuracy. It still is one of the most accurate versions around when compared to its underlying text; amazingly so when one considers the idiomatic shifts that take place in translation. Ryken makes a very good argument that it is the grand-daddy of all Essentially Literal translations.
    'There's nae jouking in the cause of Christ' - James Guthrie

    We shall not adjust our Bible to the age; but before we have done with it, by God's grace, we shall adjust the age to the Bible. - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

    Lawrence Underwood, Jr.
    Pastor - Providence Family Fellowship / Mobile, Alabama
    LBC
    My Blog - Imprimis

    Deo Vindice

  4. #4
    Marrow Man's Avatar
    Marrow Man is offline. Drunk with Powder
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,853
    An example of a "dynamic equivalence" in the KJV would be in Romans 6:2a. The KJV has the translation "God forbid," even though the words "God" and "forbid" are nowhere in the text. The NASB, on the other hand, translates me genoito more literally as "may it never be."
    Last edited by Marrow Man; 05-12-2011 at 09:57 PM.
    Tim Phillips
    Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
    Louisville, KY
    Husband of Scottish Lass
    Father of Grace Cameron Phillips
    My Blog: Gairney Bridge
    My Facebook/My Avatar

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
    2 member(s) found this post helpful.

  5. #5
    BibleCyst's Avatar
    BibleCyst is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    99
    I can see already that this thread is going to be fascinating! Thanks!
    Rich
    Member, PCA
    Baltimore, MD

  6. #6
    JM's Avatar
    JM
    JM is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,809
    Just finished Ryken's book the other day. He seems to think highly of the AV and gives some examples where the AV outshines modern translations.
    Jason
    Particular Baptist
    Ontario, Canada
    twitter
    Feileadh Mor
    YouTube

    We must remember that literally all our salvation is in Christ. - Herman Hoeksema

  7. #7
    Dearly Bought's Avatar
    Dearly Bought is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,351
    Two distinctive features of the Authorised Version lend particular credibility to claims of superior accuracy in translation. First, the Authorised Version makes use of italics to distinguish words in the English translation which are not present in the original language but are used to contribute to understanding and proper English. Secondly, the Authorised Version utilizes the old English forms of the second person singular and plural (e.g., thou, thee, ye) to communicate these crucial distinctions in English translation.

    For a good essay on the use of italics, see "Why is that writing slanted?" by D.E. Anderson.
    Bryan Peters
    Trinity Presbyterian Reformed Church
    Student of Theology Under Care of the Presbyterian Reformed Church
    Johnston, Iowa

    The true visible church, where God's ordinances are set up as he hath appointed,
    where his word is purely preached, is the most beautiful thing under heaven,
    and there is God's glory set forth and manifested more clearly than in all the Lord's handiwork beside in heaven or earth.
    ~David Dickson~
    8 member(s) found this post helpful.

  8. #8
    Osage Bluestem is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,371
    I don't know about it these days. It has some problems. One Hebrew scholar on the board pointed out Proverbs 29:18 as a glaring error in the KJV. The use of "God forbid" as the poster above pointed out is pretty bad. The word Unicorn is used.

    Proverbs 29:18 KJV vs Every Other Translation

    My honest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.

    I've never been a KJV onlyist but I did claim to be a KJV supremacist before because that was the bible I was raised with and it had been used for so many years, but that is just a sentimental feeling. I think that as far as what is available to us now the KJV is towards the end of the list. I prefer the modern translations.

    I like ESV, NASB, NIV, and now even the HCSB. I received each one with criticism but each has grown on me in one way or another. I think they are all superior to the KJV. The NKJV is good but I wonder if it is sound to use the received text as opposed to the critical text. I'm really starting to lean toward the critical text. It's very hard to defend the received text.
    Last edited by Osage Bluestem; 05-12-2011 at 11:19 PM.
    David Doss
    First Baptist Church of Colleyville Texas (SBC)
    LBCF 1689

    www.osagebluestem.wordpress.com

  9. #9
    AustinW is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,197
    For every improvement over the KJV in the NASB or ESV, there are a hundred dynamic watering-downs of a more literal translation present in the KJV.
    6 member(s) found this post helpful.

  10. #10
    Dearly Bought's Avatar
    Dearly Bought is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    The use of "God forbid" as the poster above pointed out is pretty bad.
    Don't be too quick to dismiss this rendering, especially considering the interesting correspondence from the Septuagint.
    The Greek literally means, ‘May it not be!’ but since it is an exclamation of abhorrence, some scholars, like Professor John Murray, have defended the AV rendering. Murray writes, ‘It really needs the force of the expression given in our version “God forbid”’. In a footnote, Murray says, ‘me genoito corresponds to a Hebrew expression and actually occurs in the LXX of Gen 44:7,17; Josh 22:29; 24:16; 1 Kgs 21:3. The Hebrew expression is sometimes used with names for God (1 Sam 24:6—“The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master”. See also: 26:11; 1 Kgs 21:3; 1 Chron 11:19; Job 34:10)’. He concludes: ‘Hence our English expression “God forbid” has biblical precedent. The Greek me genoito, indicating the recoil of abhorrence, needs the strength of this English rendering derived from the Hebrew’.
    ("The Accuracy of the Authorised Version," by Malcom Watts)
    Bryan Peters
    Trinity Presbyterian Reformed Church
    Student of Theology Under Care of the Presbyterian Reformed Church
    Johnston, Iowa

    The true visible church, where God's ordinances are set up as he hath appointed,
    where his word is purely preached, is the most beautiful thing under heaven,
    and there is God's glory set forth and manifested more clearly than in all the Lord's handiwork beside in heaven or earth.
    ~David Dickson~
    8 member(s) found this post helpful.

  11. #11
    VictorBravo's Avatar
    VictorBravo is offline. Administrator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    8,535
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.
    David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.

    The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.
    R. Victor Bottomly
    Port Cities Reformed Baptist Church, Lewiston ID

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- How to access Politics and Government forum
    11 member(s) found this post helpful.

  12. #12
    Osage Bluestem is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,371
    Quote Originally Posted by VictorBravo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.
    David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.

    The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.
    I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blessed with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
    David Doss
    First Baptist Church of Colleyville Texas (SBC)
    LBCF 1689

    www.osagebluestem.wordpress.com
    1 member(s) found this post helpful.

  13. #13
    MW
    MW is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    12,029
    If "me genoito" is an idiomatic expression designed to reflect abhorrence it is accurate to make this phrase serve the same function in any target language into which it is translated. It takes in an understanding of the "dynamics" of language but it is not technically correct to call this dynamic equivalence. Semantics is a function of a language's dynamics. Translating the same word in different ways reflects a knowledge of semantics. Dynamic equivalence, however, does not aim to recreate the dynamics of language, but to convert "thought-forms" into the thought forms of the target language.
    Last edited by MW; 05-13-2011 at 09:36 PM.
    Yours sincerely,
    Rev. Matthew Winzer
    Australian Free Church,
    Victoria, Australia

    "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
    16 member(s) found this post helpful.

  14. #14
    CIT
    CIT is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,100
    Quote Originally Posted by BibleCyst View Post
    Putting aside differences in manuscripts, how accurate is the KJV compared to a translation such as the NASB?
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today
    B
    3 member(s) found this post helpful.

  15. #15
    AustinW is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by VictorBravo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.
    David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.

    The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.
    I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blesses with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
    I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
    8 member(s) found this post helpful.

  16. #16
    Osage Bluestem is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,371
    Quote Originally Posted by austinww View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by VictorBravo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.
    David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.

    The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.
    I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blesses with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
    I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
    I was in my KJV supremacist phase when I was a member of a PCA church. I was virtually the only one there with a KJV. I was involved in a Thursday morning bible study with the pastor and some elders and other men and they tolerated me using the KJV but always threw out little nuggets that stuck in my mind as to why they didn't use it and why the other versions were better. When it was my turn to read I read from my KJV and the pastor would often correct the rendering when I was finished. I am actually thankful to them for teaching me and bringing me out of that phase. They were patient with me. I went back later when everythign had sunk in and showed them that I was using an NIV Thompson Chain Reference. They were pleased.

    In the Baptist church I am a member of now virtually no one uses the KJV. The pastor preaches out of the NIV. I have learned to use many different translations. However right now I trust the ESV most.
    David Doss
    First Baptist Church of Colleyville Texas (SBC)
    LBCF 1689

    www.osagebluestem.wordpress.com

  17. #17
    VictorBravo's Avatar
    VictorBravo is offline. Administrator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    8,535
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blessed with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
    But the complaints you raise have nothing to do with the manuscripts. All of the major translations, as far as I can tell, rely on the same Masoretic Text language as the KJV for the passage from Proverbs you cited. I'm pretty sure that they all rely primarily on the Masoretic text for OT translation in general, just like the KJV. Sure, there may be a footnote referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls occasionally, but I don't think the manuscript issue is an argument for the OT passages.

    And for the passages with "God forbid," there is no difference in the underlying Greek manuscripts. It is a translator's choice, not a manuscript issue.
    R. Victor Bottomly
    Port Cities Reformed Baptist Church, Lewiston ID

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- How to access Politics and Government forum
    4 member(s) found this post helpful.

  18. #18
    AustinW is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by austinww View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by VictorBravo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    My homest assesment is that there are far superior translations out there these days that are more accurate and mor true to teh original manuscripts than the KJV. It's pretty but more of a novelty item as compared with scholarly translations.
    David, one thing I'd be careful about is lightly dismissing the KJV as a novelty item or less scholarly than modern ones. It comes across as impuning some extremely fine scholars of the era, for one thing.

    The other thing is a personal observation: The more skilled I become at reading Hebrew and Greek, the more impressed I am with the 1611 translators.
    I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blesses with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
    I'm sorry, but the notion that the KJV is not used anywhere but fundamentalist churches simply isn't true. I've heard it used in lots of audio sermons at Presbyterian churches. Several Presbyterian denominations around the world have the KJV as their official denominational translation. And whether we have better manuscripts now is a debated issue, not a settled one.
    I was in my KJV supremacist phase when I was a member of a PCA church. I was virtually the only one there with a KJV. I was involved in a Thursday morning bible study with the pastor and some elders and other men and they tolerated me using the KJV but always threw out little nuggets that stuck in my mind as to why they didn't use it and why the other versions were better. When it was my turn to read I read from my KJV and the pastor would often correct the rendering when I was finished. I am actually thankful to them for teaching me and bringing me out of that phase. They were patient with me. I went back later when everythign had sunk in and showed them that I was using an NIV Thompson Chain Reference. They were pleased.

    In the Baptist church I am a member of now virtually no one uses the KJV. The pastor preaches out of the NIV. I have learned to use many different translations. However right now I trust the ESV most.
    1. The PCA isn't the only Presbyterian denomination. As I mentioned, there are several that have the KJV as their official denomination-wide translation. That alone makes it untrue that it is only used in "fundamentalist" churches. I'm just trying to make sure we're fair.

    2. My experience is sort of the opposite of yours. When I bring a KJV to the sermon and my pastor preaches from the ESV, consistently, repeatedly, numerous times, he has corrected his own translation, saying "The Hebrew here actually says..." and consistently he then states what I read in my Bible that was different while he was reading.
    6 member(s) found this post helpful.

  19. #19
    Osage Bluestem is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,371
    Quote Originally Posted by VictorBravo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    I think those scholars were great. That's not the problem. The actual issue is that they just didn't have the manuscripts we have today, nor did they have the resources for translation that we have today. So, the KJV is just dated. It was great for it's time but it's time is over. It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church. So, for us who are blessed with a great amount of resources the KJV really falls inot a sentimental historical category. It has a purpose but just not the kind of purpose it had in it's day.
    But the complaints you raise have nothing to do with the manuscripts. All of the major translations, as far as I can tell, rely on the same Masoretic Text language as the KJV for the passage from Proverbs you cited. I'm pretty sure that they all rely primarily on the Masoretic text for OT translation, just like the KJV. Sure, there may be a footnote referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls occasionally, but I don't think the manuscript issue is an argument for the OT passages.

    And for the passages with "God forbid," there is no difference in the underlying Greek manuscripts. It is a translator's choice, not a manuscript issue.
    I agree that the manuscripts the the OT are virtually the same the major differences are in the NT. However, we have more linguistic resources and ease of communication in the modern age. That makes the difference in the translation of the OT, communication and education. The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.
    David Doss
    First Baptist Church of Colleyville Texas (SBC)
    LBCF 1689

    www.osagebluestem.wordpress.com

  20. #20
    AustinW is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    I agree that the manuscripts the the OT are virtually the same the major differences are in the NT. However, we have more linguistic resources and ease of communication in the modern age. That makes the difference in the translation of the OT, communication and education. The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.
    We also need to consider translation methodology. Superior resources, okay, sure. You'd think, then, that the ESV would be a more accurate translation, but consistently it is less so. Why? Because translation methodology makes a difference too. The ESV is a good translation, but it's simply not true to state categorically that it is more accurate than the KJV across the board. Many scholars feel the opposite.
    2 member(s) found this post helpful.

  21. #21
    Osage Bluestem is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,371
    Quote Originally Posted by austinww View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    I agree that the manuscripts the the OT are virtually the same the major differences are in the NT. However, we have more linguistic resources and ease of communication in the modern age. That makes the difference in the translation of the OT, communication and education. The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.
    We also need to consider translation methodology. Superior resources, okay, sure. You'd think, then, that the ESV would be a more accurate translation, but consistently it is less so. Why? Because translation methodology makes a difference too. The ESV is a good translation, but it's simply not true to state categorically that it is more accurate than the KJV across the board. Many scholars feel the opposite.
    You can find an advocate for virtually anything, especially the KJV. From what I have seen, however, the NASB and the ESV are respected as the most accurate english translations these days. I'm sure there will be another better version soon.
    David Doss
    First Baptist Church of Colleyville Texas (SBC)
    LBCF 1689

    www.osagebluestem.wordpress.com

  22. #22
    CIT
    CIT is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    I was in my KJV supremacist phase when I was a member of a PCA church. I was virtually the only one there with a KJV. I was involved in a Thursday morning bible study with the pastor and some elders and other men and they tolerated me using the KJV but always threw out little nuggets that stuck in my mind as to why they didn't use it and why the other versions were better. When it was my turn to read I read from my KJV and the pastor would often correct the rendering when I was finished. I am actually thankful to them for teaching me and bringing me out of that phase. They were patient with me. I went back later when everythign had sunk in and showed them that I was using an NIV Thompson Chain Reference. They were pleased.
    You cannot take an experience with one church and conclude that it is the denominational stance.
    B

  23. #23
    MW
    MW is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    12,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.
    I suppose the relevant questions are, Were the resources which they possessed adequate, and, Did they utilise these resources to produce an accurate translation?

    For what it's worth, scholars will sometimes prefer an older translation of a classic because its standards of "literacy" are far more conducive to a more accurate translation.
    Yours sincerely,
    Rev. Matthew Winzer
    Australian Free Church,
    Victoria, Australia

    "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
    4 member(s) found this post helpful.

  24. #24
    DMcFadden's Avatar
    DMcFadden is offline. Meum cerebrum nocet
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10,058
    A few years ago, full of myself and confident of the dismissive attitude of my Greek and NT profs almost 40 years ago (man I must be old!), my only translation was the NIV.

    My shift came in the early part of the last decade when the ESV came out and I fell helpless before the mesmerizing powers of Crossway's advertising machine.

    However, after making the KJV a bit of a hobby this 400th anniversary year (last week), reading several of the better books (e.g., Ryken, McGrath, Nicolson, etc.) and viewing the two new DVD's (KJB - the book that Changed the World and The Making of the King James Bible), I have gained a whole new respect for the KJV.

    Most people class the NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV and some (including me) would add the HCSB in the essentially literal, word-for-word, formal correspondence, etc. category. It seems like every translator has their own cute term for trying to formally correspond to the original.

    It is pretty unhelpful, however, to ask what is the MOST literal translation. The "MOST" literal translation would be no translation at all, merely an interlinear. The NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB all attempt to render the Bible into understandable English. In doing so, they all make judgment calls on the "right" translation of countless words, grammatical constructions, and literary devices.

    Beyond this, a serious case can be made that relying so heavily upon three texts buried in the Egyptian desert near hotbeds of Christological heretics does not mean that we are using "better" (let alone the "best") texts. When you consider that all of our modern English translations (except for the KJV, and NKJV among the major translations) depend upon manuscripts representing less than 10% of the extant Greek manuscripts, I would not be so quick to dismiss the KJV folks as a bunch of ignorant fundamentalists.

    I'm essentially an ESV man (like Ryken), but WOW do I admire, respect, appreciate, stand in awe of, and honor the memory of the KJV translators. They done good. Real good.
    Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
    Atherton Baptist Homes, Alhambra, CA, President/CEO, Retired
    Emmanuel Lutheran Church, LCMS

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
    4 member(s) found this post helpful.

  25. #25
    Osage Bluestem is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaplainintraining View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    I was in my KJV supremacist phase when I was a member of a PCA church. I was virtually the only one there with a KJV. I was involved in a Thursday morning bible study with the pastor and some elders and other men and they tolerated me using the KJV but always threw out little nuggets that stuck in my mind as to why they didn't use it and why the other versions were better. When it was my turn to read I read from my KJV and the pastor would often correct the rendering when I was finished. I am actually thankful to them for teaching me and bringing me out of that phase. They were patient with me. I went back later when everythign had sunk in and showed them that I was using an NIV Thompson Chain Reference. They were pleased.
    You cannot take an experience with one church and conclude that it is the denominational stance.
    I certainly don't. I'm just sharing my personal experience. There just aren't near as many KJV churches as compared with modern translation churches these days. I predict in 30 years time there will be virtually no KJV churches outside of the fundameltalist catagory or the catagory of churches who's goal is to continue the exact practices of a past generation. It's just inevitable that the new translations will become more and more standard as the old generations pass away.
    David Doss
    First Baptist Church of Colleyville Texas (SBC)
    LBCF 1689

    www.osagebluestem.wordpress.com

  26. #26
    DMcFadden's Avatar
    DMcFadden is offline. Meum cerebrum nocet
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10,058
    Afterthought:

    The KJV is probably the only work of art ever completed by a committee.

    6 teams in three places with diverse theological points of view (e.g., puritan vs. high church) consisting of almost 50 (at least 47) men just do NOT produce this level of excellence!

    Ryken is quite correct in opining that the KJV translators sought to render the poetry (1/3 by most counts) of the Bible in a way that did more than inform the mind and appeal to the will. Like any good poetry, they believed that the divine author intended to touch the affections as well. When you compare the KJV to the insipid pedestrian pedantry of some modern translations, it is enough to make one want to cry.
    Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
    Atherton Baptist Homes, Alhambra, CA, President/CEO, Retired
    Emmanuel Lutheran Church, LCMS

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
    7 member(s) found this post helpful.

  27. #27
    Osage Bluestem is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,371
    Quote Originally Posted by DMcFadden View Post
    A few years ago, full of myself and confident of the dismissive attitude of my Greek and NT profs almost 40 years ago (man I must be old!), my only translation was the NIV.

    My shift came in the early part of the last decade when the ESV came out and I fell helpless before the mesmerizing powers of Crossway's advertising machine.

    However, after making the KJV a bit of a hobby this 400th anniversary year (last week), reading several of the better books (e.g., Ryken, McGrath, Nicolson, etc.) and viewing the two new DVD's (KJB - the book that Changed the World and The Making of the King James Bible), I have gained a whole new respect for the KJV.

    Most people class the NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV and some (including me) would add the HCSB in the essentially literal, word-for-word, formal correspondence, etc. category. It seems like every translator has their own cute term for trying to formally correspond to the original.

    It is pretty unhelpful, however, to ask what is the MOST literal translation. The "MOST" literal translation would be no translation at all, merely an interlinear. The NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB all attempt to render the Bible into understandable English. In doing so, they all make judgment calls on the "right" translation of countless words, grammatical constructions, and literary devices.

    Beyond this, a serious case can be made that relying so heavily upon three texts buried in the Egyptian desert near hotbeds of Christological heretics does not mean that we are using "better" (let alone the "best") texts. When you consider that all of our modern English translations (except for the KJV, and NKJV among the major translations) depend upon manuscripts representing less than 10% of the extant Greek manuscripts, I would not be so quick to dismiss the KJV folks as a bunch of ignorant fundamentalists.

    I'm essentially an ESV man (like Ryken), but WOW do I admire, respect, appreciate, stand in awe of, and honor the memory of the KJV translators. They done good. Real good.
    I share this view. Even the part about the HCSB it's growing on me as I read it. I'm realy enjoying it and certainly didn't think I would. But I am one tha has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a new translation.
    David Doss
    First Baptist Church of Colleyville Texas (SBC)
    LBCF 1689

    www.osagebluestem.wordpress.com

  28. #28
    VictorBravo's Avatar
    VictorBravo is offline. Administrator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    8,535
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by DMcFadden View Post
    However, after making the KJV a bit of a hobby this 400th anniversary year (last week), reading several of the better books (e.g., Ryken, McGrath, Nicolson, etc.) and viewing the two new DVD's (KJB - the book that Changed the World and The Making of the King James Bible), I have gained a whole new respect for the KJV.
    Dennis! Four months ago I searched all over the internet trying to find the actual publication date of the KJV. My wife and I wanted to celebrate it. But I came up with nothing. Now you tell me, after the fact.

    I guess I was just too much occupied by the things of the world to notice May 2. Now I have to wait another 100 years for that cake we were going to have. . . .
    R. Victor Bottomly
    Port Cities Reformed Baptist Church, Lewiston ID

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- How to access Politics and Government forum

  29. #29
    CIT
    CIT is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    It's hardly ever used anymore from pulpits unless one is in a fundamentalist church
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    I'm just sharing my personal experience
    I was attempting to point out that it seems you used your personal experience to make the blanket statement that the KJV is used seldom outside of fundamentalist churches, and that your experience is not sufficient to make such a claim.
    B
    3 member(s) found this post helpful.

  30. #30
    Osage Bluestem is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,371
    Quote Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.
    I suppose the relevant questions are, Were the resources which they possessed adequate, and, Did they utilise these resources to produce an accurate translation?

    For what it's worth, scholars will sometimes prefer an older translation of a classic because its standards of "literacy" are far more conducive to a more accurate translation.
    I believe the scholars did an outstanding job with what they had. And given the manuscripts they had they made a pretty accurate and literal translation. However, as we know now their New Testament manuscripts leave a lot to be desired and have since been corrected broadly by the modern translations that use the best available manuscripts and resources available to ensure we have the most accurate english renderings possible for what we have now. So indeed our bible (mostly the NT) is very different from the bible of the KJV scholars. There is on average 24 fewer entire NT verses in the older manscripts than there are in the ones used by the KJV which leads us to believe that scribes and copiests added text of their own into the text. That's why we have the newer translations based on the better and older manuscripts to clear up this problem. But there is no possible way the KJV scholars could have known that so they aren't at fault. It is indeed sad though, that some of those copy errors and insertions were influential and responsible for divisions in the body of Christ.
    David Doss
    First Baptist Church of Colleyville Texas (SBC)
    LBCF 1689

    www.osagebluestem.wordpress.com

  31. #31
    VictorBravo's Avatar
    VictorBravo is offline. Administrator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    8,535
    Blog Entries
    1
    Now an afterthought to my response to Dennis--the May 2 date appears to have no documentary support. That means I can still celebrate, just like we were planning.

    mythbusters-2-may-2-publication-date-of-kjv/

    So, brother, you are off the hook.
    R. Victor Bottomly
    Port Cities Reformed Baptist Church, Lewiston ID

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- How to access Politics and Government forum

  32. #32
    AustinW is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Osage Bluestem View Post
    The KJV scholars just didn't have the resources our scholars have.
    I suppose the relevant questions are, Were the resources which they possessed adequate, and, Did they utilise these resources to produce an accurate translation?

    For what it's worth, scholars will sometimes prefer an older translation of a classic because its standards of "literacy" are far more conducive to a more accurate translation.
    I believe the scholars did an outstanding job with what they had. And given the manuscripts they had they made a pretty accurate and literal translation. However, as we know now their New Testament manuscripts leave a lot to be desired and have since been corrected broadly by the modern translations that use the best available manuscripts and resources available to ensure we have the most accurate english renderings possible for what we have now. So indeed our bible (mostly the NT) is very different from the bible of the KJV scholars. There is on average 24 fewer entire NT verses in the older manscripts than there are in the ones used by the KJV which leads us to believe that scribes and copiests added text of their own into the text. That's why we have the newer translations based on the better and older manuscripts to clear up this problem. But there is no possible way the KJV scholars could have known that so they aren't at fault. It is indeed sad though, that some of those copy errors and insertions were influential and responsibel for divisions int he body of Christ.
    You have no idea what you have gotten yourself into.
    3 member(s) found this post helpful.

  33. #33
    VictorBravo's Avatar
    VictorBravo is offline. Administrator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    8,535
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by austinww View Post
    You have no idea what you have gotten yourself into.
    Yup.

    David, may I suggest a search on the PB forums regarding the great debates over the CT vs the TR before going further on blanket statements over manuscripts? There is much more to the issue than what you have presented. Probably 3 months worth of steady reading, at least.

    Now's a good time for me to go to bed. Be nice, everyone.
    R. Victor Bottomly
    Port Cities Reformed Baptist Church, Lewiston ID

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- How to access Politics and Government forum
    1 member(s) found this post helpful.

  34. #34
    VictorBravo's Avatar
    VictorBravo is offline. Administrator
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    8,535
    Blog Entries
    1
    One last thing, as a moderator:

    The original post wanted the discussion to leave aside manuscript issues. Let's put the thread back on that track.
    R. Victor Bottomly
    Port Cities Reformed Baptist Church, Lewiston ID

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- How to access Politics and Government forum

  35. #35
    AustinW is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,197
    Moving back to translation methodology (since manuscripts are out), I explained some of my scepticism behind the ESV's methodology compared to the KJV's here: The ESV and Calvinists This is just one of many, many examples I have stumbled across (No, I wasn't looking). You also get things like "worthless men" in the ESV instead of "sons of Belial," or "every male" instead of "everyone that pisseth against the wall," or "Preparing your minds for action" instead of "Gird up the loins of your mind." The list goes on. We'd better have a really good excuse for replacing entire phrases that the Holy Spirit inspired. So much for not one "jot or tittle."
    3 member(s) found this post helpful.

  36. #36
    CIT
    CIT is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,100
    In terms of methodology I only know of literal vs. dynamic. Are you talking about this type of methodology or something completely different?

    (Just trying to make sure I am on the same page as everyone else)
    B

  37. #37
    AustinW is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaplainintraining View Post
    In terms of methodology I only know of literal vs. dynamic. Are you talking about this type of methodology or something completely different?

    (Just trying to make sure I am on the same page as everyone else)
    Yes, but of course each of those categories can be further divided; otherwise the NASB and the ESV wouldn't be so different. There are degrees of literalness. In my opinion the ESV is less so than the KJV on a fairly consistent basis. The NASB is better, though it does the same thing on occasion. Even the KJV does it sometimes, but far less often and with italics to show you where words have been used to clarify.

  38. #38
    CIT
    CIT is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,100
    Would Robert Young's Literal Translation be the most "literal?" I know Dr. Gentry uses this translation (or at least did in a sermon I heard).
    B

  39. #39
    AustinW is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaplainintraining View Post
    Would Robert Young's Literal Translation be the most "literal?" I know Dr. Gentry uses this translation (or at least did in a sermon I heard).
    It's very literal, but it isn't in grammatical English, so I don't think it ought to be considered a translation proper. It's more of an attempt at "Greek in English," sort of like Signed English vs. American Sign Language, if you know the difference.
    1 member(s) found this post helpful.

  40. #40
    TimV's Avatar
    TimV is offline. Puritanboard Botanist
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    8,198
    Quote Originally Posted by DMcFadden View Post
    The KJV is probably the only work of art ever completed by a committee.
    Why can't I regularly think of clever things like that. Or even rarely.
    Tim Vaughan
    Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
    Santa Maria
    California

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72