King James Only Movement

Status
Not open for further replies.

RTaron

The Grandpa (Affectionately Called)
"Faithful" KJV Updates


1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.


I didn't know about this bible version. Thanks for posting about it. I looks very good. Third Millennium Bible (TMB), New Authorized Version (NAV)


However, there is a statement in the preface that sounds sketchy to me. It says:

"What has been historically known as Biblical English has been retained throughout the updating process. It is readily distinguishable from the colloquial language of business, commerce, and the media used in contemporary Bible translations. Biblical English may be intuitively recognized as the traditional language of worship and prayer, a liturgical language, used for centuries in English-speaking churches everywhere. It is not, as has often been alleged, the Shakespearean language of the early seventeenth century. It has indeed never been used in ordinary secular discourse anywhere, but owes its character to faithful translation from the original biblical languages. It is the language which has found its acceptance in Scripture and liturgy for more than five hundred years in over ninety percent of the English-speaking churches throughout the world. Only in the late twentieth century does one find secular English permeating Bible translations."

I think what they are referring to is using "th" at the end of many words like cometh and goeth or hearest.

How can this be attributed to "faithful translation of the original biblical languages"?

Does anyone know what this is about? Is it just a sales pitch?

Thanks!
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
"Faithful" KJV Updates


1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.


I didn't know about this bible version. Thanks for posting about it. I looks very good. Third Millennium Bible (TMB), New Authorized Version (NAV)


However, there is a statement in the preface that sounds sketchy to me. It says:

"What has been historically known as Biblical English has been retained throughout the updating process. It is readily distinguishable from the colloquial language of business, commerce, and the media used in contemporary Bible translations. Biblical English may be intuitively recognized as the traditional language of worship and prayer, a liturgical language, used for centuries in English-speaking churches everywhere. It is not, as has often been alleged, the Shakespearean language of the early seventeenth century. It has indeed never been used in ordinary secular discourse anywhere, but owes its character to faithful translation from the original biblical languages. It is the language which has found its acceptance in Scripture and liturgy for more than five hundred years in over ninety percent of the English-speaking churches throughout the world. Only in the late twentieth century does one find secular English permeating Bible translations."

I think what they are referring to is using "th" at the end of many words like cometh and goeth or hearest.

How can this be attributed to "faithful translation of the original biblical languages"?

Does anyone know what this is about? Is it just a sales pitch?

Thanks!

If it is a reference to the -est & -eth ending, these are necessary in order to properly translate the Greek and Hebrew verb forms.

I go
Thou goest -est
He/She/It goeth -eth

Dropping these verb endings and the thou/you distinction makes a translation less accurate.

They may also be addressing the transparency of the AV to the original languages. Instead of translating the Bible into the common english of their time, they translated it into what can only be called "Biblical English." The AV is filled with Hebrew Idioms that are missing from modern translations. When you see an unusual sentence structure in the AV, it is due to the underlying Greek or Hebrew sentence being faithfully represented in English.

On page 3 I posted some links and excerpts that deal with the readability of the AV. Those links also deal with the faithfulness of the translation to the originals.

Hope that helps.

In fact Harvard has a book out that deals directly with this issue. I'll find the title and post it later.
 

Ex Nihilo

Puritan Board Senior
"Faithful" KJV Updates


1) King James 21 or Third Millennium Bible - this one updates a lot, but not the Thees/Thous. I kinda like this one, though I don't have one in text.


I didn't know about this bible version. Thanks for posting about it. I looks very good. Third Millennium Bible (TMB), New Authorized Version (NAV)


However, there is a statement in the preface that sounds sketchy to me. It says:

"What has been historically known as Biblical English has been retained throughout the updating process. It is readily distinguishable from the colloquial language of business, commerce, and the media used in contemporary Bible translations. Biblical English may be intuitively recognized as the traditional language of worship and prayer, a liturgical language, used for centuries in English-speaking churches everywhere. It is not, as has often been alleged, the Shakespearean language of the early seventeenth century. It has indeed never been used in ordinary secular discourse anywhere, but owes its character to faithful translation from the original biblical languages. It is the language which has found its acceptance in Scripture and liturgy for more than five hundred years in over ninety percent of the English-speaking churches throughout the world. Only in the late twentieth century does one find secular English permeating Bible translations."

I think what they are referring to is using "th" at the end of many words like cometh and goeth or hearest.

How can this be attributed to "faithful translation of the original biblical languages"?

Does anyone know what this is about? Is it just a sales pitch?

Thanks!

If it is a reference to the -est & -eth ending, these are necessary in order to properly translate the Greek and Hebrew verb forms.

I go
Thou goest -est
He/She/It goeth -eth

Dropping these verb endings and the thou/you distinction makes a translation less accurate.

Undoubtedly the verb forms of Greek and Hebrew do not have exact corresponding forms in 2008 English -- but if we have to learn another language to get a better idea of the original forms, why aren't more lay people learning Greek and Hebrew? Greek verb forms do not have exactly analogous forms in "Biblical English," either.

I am curious as to what is more accurate about "he goeth" as opposed to "he goes." I understand that Greek has different verb forms for "he goes" as opposed to "I go" but I don't see any substantive difference that needs to be indicated by a translation. . .
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
Is either a possibility?

Not from li'l ol' me.

Yes, sir, I understand that, but since it's going to be the 400th anniversary of the AV I thought perhaps something was in the works. If not an "update" than something promoting the event...something....

2011 Trust
The King James Version 400th Anniversary Website

Trinitarian Bible Society:

09 May 2008

Four Hundred Years


In celebration of the four hundredth anniversary of the publication of the English Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible in 2011, the Society is planning a series of commemorative lectures throughout the British Isles. Subjects will include the history of the English Bible before 1611, King James and Hampton Court, a Protestant Bible for all people, and the Authorised Version's relevance in a multicultural society. Details will be provided as they become available.

We would appreciate your prayers as we seek the Lord's guidance in this endeavour.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
I didn't know about this bible version. Thanks for posting about it. I looks very good. Third Millennium Bible (TMB), New Authorized Version (NAV)


However, there is a statement in the preface that sounds sketchy to me. It says:



I think what they are referring to is using "th" at the end of many words like cometh and goeth or hearest.

How can this be attributed to "faithful translation of the original biblical languages"?

Does anyone know what this is about? Is it just a sales pitch?

Thanks!

If it is a reference to the -est & -eth ending, these are necessary in order to properly translate the Greek and Hebrew verb forms.

I go
Thou goest -est
He/She/It goeth -eth

Dropping these verb endings and the thou/you distinction makes a translation less accurate.

Undoubtedly the verb forms of Greek and Hebrew do not have exact corresponding forms in 2008 English -- but if we have to learn another language to get a better idea of the original forms, why aren't more lay people learning Greek and Hebrew? Greek verb forms do not have exactly analogous forms in "Biblical English," either.

I am curious as to what is more accurate about "he goeth" as opposed to "he goes." I understand that Greek has different verb forms for "he goes" as opposed to "I go" but I don't see any substantive difference that needs to be indicated by a translation. . .

What's the other language you're referring to?

In Greek & Hebrew there is a difference between 2nd pers. sing. and 2nd pers. plur pronouns. Any translation in English that is to accurately reflect the original languages must also make that distinction. The -est & -eth endings are the verb endings that go with that distinction. It is bad grammar to write, Thou go. However it is not bad grammar to write, thou shalt go. He goeth and he goes are not substantially different. But when using the correct 2nd pers. sing. pronoun we must also employ the correct verb endings for the other pronouns. In third pers. sing. using "-s" while "using "-est" for 2nd pers. sing. breeds confusion. The endings are similar to the corresponding Latin endings.

Robert Lowth's A Short Introduction to English Grammar deals with how the Time & Mode of verbs are rendered with the two endings.

I should have clarified that the verb endings go together with the thou/you distinction. You cannot separate them.

John 1:49-51

AV 49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the
King of Israel. 50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee
under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. 51 And he saith
unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of
God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

ESV 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe?
You will see greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you
will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

In the ESV it appears that Jesus is addressing Nathanael the entire time. He is not. The AV makes this clear.
 
Last edited:

Galatians220

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Rev. Winzer, do you know why they didn't make the NKJV an update of the original KJV manuscripts?

If the preface to the NKJV is carefully read it will be seen that this version presumed to make the AV more precise and not simply more readable. This led the committee down the path of seeking academic acceptability. Remarkably, though, its innovations led to less precision, since one cannot make heads nor tails of what the text is actually saying on numerous occasions. E.g., Every English speaker knows what "hell" is, but who can tell what to make of "Hades," which is really only a transliteration, not a translation.

For what it's worth: The NKJV Examined and Bible Version Comparison Chart.

My Thompson Chain Reference KJV (for just one of many references that I've read on this, and noting that the TCR is, itself, not a particular proponent of the KJV, although it obviously does publish a version of it) has a chart in the back showing a line of descent for the NKJV from the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, as well as from "Dead Sea Scrolls and Newly Discovered Manuscripts." (p. 1585, Thompson Chain Reference, Kirkbride, 1988.) The line of Biblical descent appertaining to the KJV includes Bishops, Geneva, the Great Bible, Matthews, Coverdale, Tyndale, Wycliffe and "ancient copies." I would respectfully aver that the line of descent of the KJV and the NKJV are different...

Margaret
 

Ex Nihilo

Puritan Board Senior
If it is a reference to the -est & -eth ending, these are necessary in order to properly translate the Greek and Hebrew verb forms.

I go
Thou goest -est
He/She/It goeth -eth

Dropping these verb endings and the thou/you distinction makes a translation less accurate.

Undoubtedly the verb forms of Greek and Hebrew do not have exact corresponding forms in 2008 English -- but if we have to learn another language to get a better idea of the original forms, why aren't more lay people learning Greek and Hebrew? Greek verb forms do not have exactly analogous forms in "Biblical English," either.

I am curious as to what is more accurate about "he goeth" as opposed to "he goes." I understand that Greek has different verb forms for "he goes" as opposed to "I go" but I don't see any substantive difference that needs to be indicated by a translation. . .

What's the other language you're referring to?

"Biblical English," since most people do not already understand the distinction between thou/you. Technically the KJV is in an early form of modern English, but most people need language training -- not unlike foreign language training -- to understand the very concepts that KJV English reproduces better.

I should have clarified that the verb endings go together with the thou/you distinction. You cannot separate them.

Ah, I see. I can see the significance of the thou/you, but the only reason you can't separate that from the verb endings, if I am understanding correctly, is because it would be bad English.

I agree that people need to be more educated about the nuances of Greek that can't be expressed in modern English, but thou/you is only one part of that. There are plenty of other Greek grammatical constructions (I took Greek a while ago, so my memory is probably confused, but concepts like the aortic, the middle voice, other distinctions among verb tense forms and voices come to mind) that can't be expressed in any form of English. The only solution to this is not the KJV, but a better knowledge of biblical language to supplement our Bible reading.

And for those who wouldn't put in the effort to learn something about Greek grammar, I don't see them putting in the effort to learn the specific KJV grammar that is somewhat closer -- so they miss out on these distinctions, anyway.
 

JohnGill

Puritan Board Senior
In fact Harvard has a book out that deals directly with this issue. I'll find the title and post it later.

The book is Harvard's Literary Guide to the Bible.

The use of word pairs depends naturally upon parallelism...The doctrine that the Bible is its own interpreter was held...by both the rabbis and Luther, and the belief that one can
best interpret a text by associating it with another text of similar authority presumes...the most fleeting echo, perhaps only of a single word, is significant.

and why they picked the AV:

... our reasons for doing so must be obvious: it is the version most English readers associate with the literary qualities of the Bible, and it is still arguably the version that best preserves the literary effects of the original languages (The Literary Guide to the Bible, p. 7)

Professor Gerald Hammond of the University of Manchester on the AV:

[T]he context defines the word and gives it its specific meaning...t constantly redefines and recontextualizes words. By ignoring this fact, [modern] translators frequently diminish the status of the text they translate...A modern translator...perceives the word only as it appears in the lexicon...[T]he literary loss is large...


Albert S. Cook's book listed in an earlier post is also useful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top