Readable vs "Modern Speech"

[DMcFadden]

The KJV was archaic (at least in some grammatical forms) when it was translated. To say that it was in the "vulgar" language did not imply that it was in any way dumbed down. The translators were intent on being FAITHFUL to the original. This included appeals that went beyond the prosaic since a huge percentage of the Bible is cast in poetic form.

Ryken does a very persuasive job (in my opinion) showing that some of the plain speech "readable" versions skew the Bible inaccurately by the very fact that they remove language INTENDED to appeal to the emotions as well as to communicate. By making the criterion getting from point A to point B in the simplest way possible, they actually MISTRANSLATE the word. Going from "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" to "God made everything" is only OK if you conclude that the original intent was to communicate at a minimalistic level a very circumcribed packet of cognitive information.

I doubt that ANY of the English Bibles available today are too "unreadable" to be understood by the average person. The questions should relate to two issues: choice of text and translation philosophy. After many years of using pretty much all of the "readable" translations (the church even gave me the Good News Bible in leather as an ordination present 34 years ago!), I am persuaded by Ryken's call for an essentially literal translation. Besides, the Bible was intended to be read aloud and exposited before anyone thought of using it for wide-spread personal use. I'm looking for a translation that is a faithful translation and that "reads well" in the pulpit (e.g., ESV, KJV, NKJV).

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Absolutely not!!! Shakespeare is hard to understand for most people. Greek and Hebrew is hard to understand for most people. Higher math is hard to understand for most people. This is not a reflection of mental capacity. It's a function of what is necessary. If people needed to understand Shakespeare, Greek, Hebrew, and higher math, people would use it. But for 99% of the populace, there is no need, so they won't learn it.

Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read. What might be harder to understand in Shakespeare is not the words or the sintax but the meaning of the text as whole, if you translated Shakespeare's plays in "modern" english it would be just as hard to understand the underlying message.

Since there are more accessible, and yes, more accurate versions of the Bible than the KJV, it is not necessary to learn KJV English.

This is very debatable, there is too many aspect to this (validity of underlying text used, translation method etc) to debate this again in this post. Even if there's one or two verse which you might prefer the translation used in a modern version it does not make that version more accurate. Pick one single version and stick with only that one version and compare it with the KJV on all aspect (validity of differing readings, omissions/additions of verses or words, philosophy used to compile underlying Greek text, translation method, faithfulness of the translation to the original language, etc.) and then we might come to a conclusion on which translation is more accurate.

But in any case my point in this thread was only to debate the validity of dynamic translations and to point out that it doesn’t make the text grammatically easier to understand than a formal translation. I didn’t use the NASB or other formal translations as examples because I do not support the underlying text used to translate them but this is beside the point for now. By using dynamic equivalence in essence what you are doing is saying that you do not like the way the text is presented in the bible and if it would have been up to you this is how you would have written it. The biblical authors guided by the Holy Spirit wrote the scriptures a certain way and I believe we should be as faithful as possible to the originals when translating them. Even if a message can be delivered different ways I don’t think we have the liberty to change the way it is delivered when we translate the scriptures and should always strive to be as faithful to the original as possible.

I disagree that formal translations are superior, but think of it this way: is the Greek and Hebrew superior to our English translations? I assume we agree that they are. If you are converted and have that conviction, why aren't you fluent in them?

Here you are jumping into a different area altogether, what we are discussing here is the validity of translation method within the same language not the superiority of the original language vs a translation. And yes I do believe learning Greek and Hebrew to be valuable but this has nothing to do with our current conversation. Learning Hebrew and Greek or getting used to a formal English translation when you are already fluent in English is not comparable.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read.

Some would disagree with this point:

Bible Translation Guide

AMR

 

[jogri17]

As I've studied the translation issue, and read my own copies, it has become obvious that the dynamic and paraphrase Bibles (NLT, CEB, CEV, The "Massage" and Living Bibles) have grown to confuse "readability" with "how we speak today." They've used things like contractions and slang words more and more, and insist "we need to have a readable Bible" alongside of "having a Bible that speaks like we do."

I would hate to have a Bible that sounds like some southerners. I'm from the North so I'm a bit biased

 

[KMK]

Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read.

Some would disagree with this point:

Bible Translation Guide

AMR

Who is Jonathon Tate?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read.

Some would disagree with this point:

Bible Translation Guide

AMR

Who is Jonathon Tate?

He is the "mayor" of

http://www.tateville.com/

then see

Tateville 2011 - The Mayor's Mansion

 

[gracea1one]

Here is a link some might find interesting...it is a launchpad to several videos of a symposium last fall comparing several versions (NIV vs ESV vs HCSB) and seems to get at some of the issues about readability brought up in this forum. So far I've only watched the video on the ESV by Grudem (Video 2), but I would highly recommend it!

EFCA | Which Bible Translation Should I Use?

 

[JimmyH]

I may have a unique perspective to add to the conversation. My formal schooling ended with my finishing eighth grade and going into ninth briefly. I did read well for my grade level and continued to read widely after I left school. I am old to enough to have been exposed to the AV when it and, as far as I know, the RSV, and ASV were the only translations generally available. The AV was the mainstay of believers in the 1950s, '60s until the newer versions began to appear in the '70s and beyond.

In my teens I can remember being confused when our Lord said "suffer the little children to come unto Me." I had to ask and once told that in the English of the time 'suffer' meant allow I understood. The same with similar archaic terms that I encountered as I read the AV in my youth. I'm not saying that because I have little formal education 'anyone' can do well with the AV. Just that in my youth there were few alternatives.

When I was a young man, forty plus years ago, if you went to a Baptist church the preacher was reading out of the King James version and that was what was in the pew in front of you. Since the '70s, as we all know, things have changed and there are so many alternatives. The cow is out of the barn and it is too late to close the door I suppose.

I read the AV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV. Pretty much in that order. I too feel that accuracy is paramount and lament the fact that there are so many dynamic translations coming to the fore. On the other hand, as Paul said, whether the gospel is preached out of good motives or bad, as long as it is preached and souls are saved , that is what is important.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read.

Some would disagree with this point:

Bible Translation Guide

AMR

Who is Jonathon Tate?

He is the "mayor" of

http://www.tateville.com/

then see

Tateville 2011 - The Mayor's Mansion

That would be yours truly. I got the "grade level" from various charts online.

BTW - The reason KJVOs say the KJV is the "most readable" is because some readability charts go by the length of words. This is a non-sequitur, as "wot", "wist", and a lot of archaic words are shorter than words we use today.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

Originally Posted by Fogetaboutit
Again as I pointed earlier we don't agree on this, you start from the faulty presuposition that the KJV has a higher reading level than modern dynamic translations, although it has a different style it doesn't mean it is harder to read.
Some would disagree with this point:

Bible Translation Guide

AMR

I'm not sure I would trust Zondervan to tell me which bible is more faithful to the original writtings but maybe it's just me. The ESV more "word for word" than the KJV??

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That would be yours truly. I got the "grade level" from various charts online.

Hah! Am glad the connection is now made! I appreciate the effort you put into that material.

AMR

 

[DMcFadden]

Don't trust Zondervan? Shocking! Now that Harper Collins (= NewsCorp = Rupert Murdoch), the #2 publisher, owns Zondervan and is acquiring Thomas Nelson (the #6 publisher), that puts a large market share under the Murdoch hegemony.

 

[reformed28]

Looks like Trinitarian Bible Society or Crossway!

 

[FedByRavens]

I think the NASB is underrated.

 

[Edward]

I'm not sure I would trust Zondervan to tell me which bible is more faithful to the original writtings

I don't know. The correctly show that the TNIV is as far as you can get from either word for word or dynamic equivalence. Of course, I wouldn't put it on a list of Bibles, anyway.

 

[athanatos]

The final clause consists of just four words in the original: εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς. Most English versions translate this as “He loved them to the end”.
But suppose this person we are concerned about, or his teacher, is reading from the NIRV?

The NIRV renders the verse thusly:

John 13:1 It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world. It was time for him to go to the Father. Jesus loved his disciples who were in the world. So he now showed them how much he really loved them. (Joh 13:1 NIRV)

The four words in the original Greek become eleven words in the English of the NIRV. And it should be apparent that the NIRV has moved well beyond translating and encroached into the realm of interpretation. Aside from the fact that these ought to be separate disciplines we might ask “is their interpretation right beyond dispute?”

I might be nit-picky, but ... what does word count matter? I understand that this example shows that they added not only words, but content... Yet I think I could translate the 4-word greek phrase into a 2-word Hebrew phrase. Am I somehow cutting short the gospel, would it be short changing God's word? I only emphasize this because your rhetorical force was bolded.

---------- Post added at 07:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

Sorry, I didn't realize that his post was almost a month old.