Accuracy of the KJV

Status
Not open for further replies.

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

au5t1n

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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. :lol:
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
You have no idea what you have gotten yourself into. :lol:

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. ;)
 

VictorBravo

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

au5t1n

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/esv-calvinists-67062/index2.html#post860533 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."
 

CIT

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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)
 

au5t1n

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
 

CIT

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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).
 

au5t1n

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
 

nicnap

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.

I suggest you do some reading ... and not just in a cursory manner, on textual theory/criticism. Perhaps some Burgon, Hills, Leitis, and even Metzger, before you buy whole-hog into what you have just written.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
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."

When the KJV uses an entire phrase that the Holy Spirit did not inspire (me genoito translated as "God forbid"), the defense is that it is an idiomatic expression. But when the ESV decides to do likewise with other idiomatic expressions, it is condemned for doing so? :scratch:
 

Osage Bluestem

Puritan Board Junior
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.

I suggest you do some reading ... and not just in a cursory manner, on textual theory/criticism. Perhaps some Burgon, Hills, Leitis, and even Metzger, before you buy whole-hog into what you have just written.

Thanks.

I have read some of Burgon and Hills. THey are KJV only. There is even a Dean Burgon society that is KJV only. Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.

I don't know who Leitis is, I reject Bruce Metzger's higher criticism and the entire historical critical hermeneutic. He was a liberal. I employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic and believe Metzger went way to far into the realm of speculation.

I've read into the situation about Origen and the so called" corrupt "alexandrian" manuscripts..etc. I'm not convinced. It's all speculation.

But as the mod said we are getting off topic.
 

nicnap

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Thanks.

I have read some of Burgon and Hills. THey are KJV only. There is even a Dean Burgon society that is KJV only. Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.

I don't know who Leitis is, I reject Bruce Metzger's higher criticism and the entire historical critical hermeneutic. He was a liberal. I employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic and believe Metzger went way to far into the realm of speculation.

I've read into the situation about Origen and the so called" corrupt "alexandrian" manuscripts..etc. I'm not convinced. It's all speculation.

But as the mod said we are getting off topic.

Brother, I don't mean to doubt you or question your integrity, but I don't know that you have truly read them; it seems you have merely dismissed them. Hills was not KJV only, and neither was Burgon. If you have read them it was not critically, or you did with a misunderstanding. Hills was not a fundamentalist, he was reformed, and a Harvard grad linguist. Metzger did go too far (but your criticism of him comes off as if you are parroting some one else's arguments, and not as if you have read him)... and you are missing an element in your hermeneutic; it should be historical-grammatical-theological. You are not recognizing your own speculation into the Alexandrian matter, and are presupposing as much as those who say that God providentially preserved His word (if you don't know the cases, then more reading is needed). Leitis is someone to read and consider, as I have pointed out; if you don't know who he is look him up and get to reading.

Instead of just coming back in defense of yourself, take the advice given; then perhaps you might come back with more measured words in an area that it appears you don't have a firm grasp on.
 

Osage Bluestem

Puritan Board Junior
Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.
Oh, so guilt by association, eh? I suppose we should stop reading Calvin, Luther, et al because of all the misfits that use them. That's not the best way to pick your scholars. :rolleyes: You may not realize it, but your ignorant dismissive-ness comes across very pompously. I mean that as an encouragement for you to be more considerate in your cavalier sweeps.

Sorry to offend. But my dismissiveness isn't done in ignorance. I've read Edward Hills and don't agree. I used to be a KJV supremacist although never an onlyist. The illustration simply proves an earlier point made in the thread. Also the fundamentalist mentioned hates calvinism and calls it a heresy. He's terrible.

Thanks for the encouragement. I'll try to be more considerate.
 

jayce475

Puritan Board Freshman
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.

I suggest you do some reading ... and not just in a cursory manner, on textual theory/criticism. Perhaps some Burgon, Hills, Leitis, and even Metzger, before you buy whole-hog into what you have just written.

Thanks.

I have read some of Burgon and Hills. THey are KJV only. There is even a Dean Burgon society that is KJV only. Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.

I don't know who Leitis is, I reject Bruce Metzger's higher criticism and the entire historical critical hermeneutic. He was a liberal. I employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic and believe Metzger went way to far into the realm of speculation.

I've read into the situation about Origen and the so called" corrupt "alexandrian" manuscripts..etc. I'm not convinced. It's all speculation.

But as the mod said we are getting off topic.

Then God forbid that Roman Catholics believe in a historical Jesus. I don't trust them.
 

Osage Bluestem

Puritan Board Junior
Thanks.

I have read some of Burgon and Hills. THey are KJV only. There is even a Dean Burgon society that is KJV only. Edward Hills is the guy that the fundamentalist who runs the Jesus is Savior website uses: The King James Bible Defended - Introduction I don't trust them.

I don't know who Leitis is, I reject Bruce Metzger's higher criticism and the entire historical critical hermeneutic. He was a liberal. I employ the historical grammatical hermeneutic and believe Metzger went way to far into the realm of speculation.

I've read into the situation about Origen and the so called" corrupt "alexandrian" manuscripts..etc. I'm not convinced. It's all speculation.

But as the mod said we are getting off topic.

Brother, I don't mean to doubt you, but I don't know that you have truly read them; it seems you have merely dismissed them. Hills was not KJV only, and neither was Burgon. If you have read them it was not critically, or you did with a misunderstanding. Hills was not a fundamentalist, he was reformed, and a Harvard grad linguist. (He is dead and doesn't run a website.) Metzger did go too far ... and you are missing an element in your hermeneutic; it should be historical-grammatical-theological. You are not recognizing your own speculation into the Alexandrian matter, and are presupposing as much as those who say that God providentially preserved His word (if you don't know the cases, then more reading). Leitis is someone to read and consider, as I have pointed out; if you don't know who he is look him up and get to reading. Instead of just coming back in defense of yourself, take the advice given; then perhaps you might come back with more measured words in an area that it appears you don't have a firm grasp on.

I believe that God did indeed preserve his Word in the original languages. I disagree with the case that states it must be preserved only in the manuscripts that back up the KJV. Or as a KJV onlyist believes in the English of the KJV itself. I utterly reject that notion. You are correct. I do not know Leitis. I'll look him up. Thanks for the advice brother.

---------- Post added at 09:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 AM ----------

Sorry to offend. But my dismissiveness isn't done in ignorance. I've read Edward Hills and don't agree. I used to be a KJV supremacist although never an onlyist. The illustration simply proves an earlier point made in the thread. Also the fundamentalist mentioned hates calvinism and calls it a heresy. He's terrible.
No offense received here. That's fine if you don't agree with Hills, but you're rejection was related to association-by-guilt with that silly site you referenced. That serves no purpose in discrediting something with which you agree. It, rather, comes across as a veiled accusation that Hills was all such an one as that website fella was.

I imagine Hills himself was innocent of KJV onlyist errors, however his body of work is done in such a way as it encourages KJV onlyism and is always scooped up and used by fundamentalist KJV only people. So, it's been pretty well claimed.
 

jayce475

Puritan Board Freshman
I imagine Hills himself was innocent of KJV onlyist errors, however his body of work is done in such a way as it encourages KJV onlyism and is always scooped up and used by fundamentalist KJV only people. So, it's been pretty well claimed.


Dear brother, stop tarring Hills by virtue of association. It is not his fault that KJV-onlies use him, just as how it is not Calvin's fault that the hyper-Calvinists claim to follow his theology. And please note that not all of fundamentalism is crazy. Many of us fundamentalists still have sound minds.
 

discipulo

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

An earlier blessed occasion was that of the Septuagint LXX :)

English is not my native language, so I can't say much about it, but I also find the KJV my favourite english version.

I don´t want to dreail the thread, but here is a new Bible being published - vol by vol - the Dort Study Bible

An English translation of the Annotations to the Dutch Staten Bijbel of 1637 in accordance with a decree of the Synod of Dort 1618-1619

I will post about it more elsewhere, jut leave here the link:

IP/CMR Product 5
 

jayce475

Puritan Board Freshman
But when the ESV decides to do likewise with other idiomatic expressions, it is condemned for doing so?

The number of "occurrences" is hardly comparable. And have we actually established that "God forbid" is actually an instance of dynamic equivalence?
 

Osage Bluestem

Puritan Board Junior
I imagine Hills himself was innocent of KJV onlyist errors, however his body of work is done in such a way as it encourages KJV onlyism and is always scooped up and used by fundamentalist KJV only people. So, it's been pretty well claimed.


Dear brother, stop tarring Hills by virtue of association. It is not his fault that KJV-onlies use him, just as how it is not Calvin's fault that the hyper-Calvinists claim to follow his theology. And please note that not all of fundamentalism is crazy. Many of us fundamentalists still have sound minds.

Sorry. I wasn't aware there were any calvinistic fundamentalists. Usually fundamentalists are vehemently opposed to our doctrine. However, they do call westboro baptist church fundamentalist and they are indeed hyper calvinistic. But I just call Westboro a cult.

I don't mean to paint with a broad brush. I'm sure fundamentalism has a broad range of definitions. I imagine even my church falls into one of them.

I don't mean to tar and feather Hills either. I was just pointing out that the KJV only crowd loves his work.
 
Last edited:

au5t1n

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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."

When the KJV uses an entire phrase that the Holy Spirit did not inspire (me genoito translated as "God forbid"), the defense is that it is an idiomatic expression. But when the ESV decides to do likewise with other idiomatic expressions, it is condemned for doing so? :scratch:

I didn't defend "God forbid." As I told Boliver, the KJV does the same thing but far less consistently.
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
The number of "occurrences" is hardly comparable. And have we actually established that "God forbid" is actually an instance of dynamic equivalence?

I believe I placed "dynamic equivalence" in quotation marks when I used it in an earlier post. I was simply indicating that this was an instance where the phrase used was not "word for word." Number is irrelevant; does the KJV use a non-literal rendering of an idiomatic expression or not? And if other translations are criticized for doing something similar, why is the same criticism not leveled at the KJV translation?
 

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
I didn't defend "God forbid." As I told Boliver, the KJV does the same thing but far less consistently.

Fair enough. But you do see my point. Jot and tittle is jot and tittle, regardless of frequency. I was just calling for consistency in our criticisms.
 

au5t1n

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I didn't defend "God forbid." As I told Boliver, the KJV does the same thing but far less consistently.

Fair enough. But you do see my point. Jot and tittle is jot and tittle, regardless of frequency. I was just calling for consistency in our criticisms.

I see your point. For what it's worth, I do think that any translation into another language is going to require (and not wrongly) some slight adjustments to Hebrew and Greek idiom, but it is my opinion that there should be a good reason for each case and that it shouldn't be done to a greater degree than is necessary for clear understanding. I think the ESV is, on the whole, poorer at this than it is advertised to be. Sometimes the replacements seem almost arbitrary, when a straightforward translation would have made perfect sense.
 

CIT

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.

I do know the difference between the Sign Languages. That really helped explain things. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top