Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View KJV: Translation from Inferior Text?
10 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2008 - 12:37AM #11
mnwillems
Posts: 53
Just a few quick examples off the top of my head,

The translation of Hebrew dagan Greek sporimos (wheat/grain) as corn.
The archaic spelling of shew (show).
Hosea 3:1 "flagons of wine" - KJV; "raisin cakes" - NIV, RSV, NASB. perhaps a mistranslation, perhaps not.
Thee, thou, thy - if they're not anachronistic, I know not what they might be.

I grew up with the KJV, and have a deep appreciation for its language and cadences. When I try to remember Scripture, more often than not, my brain dredges it up in KJV. My own practice is to use the version in the pew for preaching and reading in worship (right now it's NIV).

If I had my back to the wall and was forced to choose between KJV and NRSV I'd go with the King in a heartbeat. I really have an issue with forced gender neutrality.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 31, 2008 - 11:32PM #12
Verdugo
Posts: 5,258
I don't think that's what Cal is referring to (although it would be helpful if he'd specify).  I don't think we're talking about difference in translations, but rather the differences in the Greek and Hebrew texts used by the KJV vs. modern translations.

Again, I don't think there's really any dispute that there are some clear (albeit usually minor) differences in those manuscripts.  The only question is which is more reliable.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2008 - 4:26PM #13
CalKnox
Posts: 330
[QUOTE=mnwillems;253692]The translation of Hebrew dagan Greek sporimos (wheat/grain) as corn.
The archaic spelling of shew (show).
Hosea 3:1 "flagons of wine" - KJV; "raisin cakes" - NIV, RSV, NASB. perhaps a mistranslation, perhaps not.
Thee, thou, thy - if they're not anachronistic, I know not what they might be.[/QUOTE]

Not significant differences. 

Corn was the generic word for grain before Europeans knew of maize.

Words change in spelling; “shew” and “show” are pronounced exactly the same.

Limited understanding of the language may lead to confusion in translating some items.

“Thee, thou, and thy” is actually significant.  It makes a great deal of difference in interpretation whether a speaker or writer is addressing a singular or plural second person.  We Southerners retain the plural form in our “you all” or “y’all,” like Jesus, “Drink you all of it.”  When the distinction is not evident in a modern translation, it is often incumbent upon the preacher to point out the distinction.  Surely, “thee, thou and thy” are understood by most.  And, use of the more intimate singular second person in reference to God indicates his unity and imminence.

However, my object is to point out the exaggerated claims of the inferiority or unreliability of the Byzantine, majority and received family of ecclesiastical texts upon which the KJV is based.  I’m not asking anyone to list all the discrepancies; one or two will do for illustration.

Given when and where I grew up, in Appalachian Kentucky in the 50's, before the prevalence of TV in homes, King James English was very understandable.  A short glossary of archaic words makes it accessible to anyone today.  The Trinitarian Bible Society provides such a handy word list in pamphlet form, and prints it in many of their Bibles.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2008 - 4:32PM #14
CalKnox
Posts: 330
[QUOTE=Doohickie;253488]He's just trying to show us how smart he is.[/QUOTE]

An attribution of motive beyond your capacity to know; inconsistent with your non-judgmental PCUSA compassionate toleration; and like the foregoing  unsupported claims regarding the unreliability of manuscripts upon which the KJV is based, without specification to demonstrate the truth of the statement.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2008 - 8:40PM #15
sterrettc
Posts: 89
Cal,

Since you started this thread because I quoted Gorman in the other thread, I think you were wanting me to respond.

I, myself, do not have the expertise necessary to argue the validity of one manuscript over another.  For that, I usually pay a good amount of deference to the text critical notes in commentaries.  I have quoted someone who is more an expert or more familiar with the work of the experts than I am.  Do I need to be an expert myself on text criticism in order to follow the advice of an expert?  Should I also go to medical school before I follow the advice of my doctor?

My point is this: I have quoted someone who might reasonably be considered an expert.  If you believe that that person is not an expert or is mistaken in this case, then the burden is on you.  I would even respect it if you merely say that you are skeptical of his assertion.  I respect that you are willing to debate issues, but it seems that your approach to debate is that the burden of proof is always on the other person.

I should say that I am not against the KJV.  I like the language of it, and am of the opinion that, if people don't know a word, then they should learn it rather than expecting others not to use it.  KJV language is certainly easier to understand than the poems of Robert Burns, which I love.  What I am against is what you have identified as the heresy of KJV Onlyism.  I think that I quoted Gorman, in part, in a rash reaction to another member's implication that KJV was a more faithful translation than all others.  If someone merely says that they prefer KJV, that's fine with me.  But if wish to claim that KJV is better and more faithful, then I feel inclined to point out that that does not seem to be the consensus opinion of the experts.

sterrett
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Feb 02, 2008 - 11:12AM #16
petofi
Posts: 1,690
I'm surprised that people still use the archaic KJV.  Common sense would tell you, that modern translations (NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Version, Today's New International Version) using older manuscripts would be better than the KJV.  I would rather use the Geneva Bible than the KJV.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Feb 02, 2008 - 2:16PM #17
Verdugo
Posts: 5,258
[QUOTE=CalKnox;257495]
However, my object is to point out the exaggerated claims of the inferiority or unreliability of the Byzantine, majority and received family of ecclesiastical texts upon which the KJV is based.  I’m not asking anyone to list all the discrepancies; one or two will do for illustration.[/QUOTE]


Thank you-- glad we're clear on the question. 

I agree with you that the Gorman vastly overstates his argument.  But given that, again, how will listing the differences-- whether all or one or two-- settle the argument?  The question is not whether there are differences, the question is which is more reliable.  How will listing the differences resolve that question?  It won't.  What we need, rather, is for each side to list the evidence that there set of mss is more reliable/closer to the original.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 12:55AM #18
CalKnox
Posts: 330
[QUOTE=petofi;259103]I'm surprised that people still use the archaic KJV.  Common sense would tell you, that modern translations (NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Version, Today's New International Version) using older manuscripts would be better than the KJV.



I'm only asking to have the common sense argument or an example of what is so obvious to others stated.

Older manuscripts do not necessarily equate with faithful and reliable.

I would rather use the Geneva Bible than the KJV.[/QUOTE]

The original Geneva Bible is an excellent translation, based on the same Greek text as the AV (KJV).  John Knox assisted in the GB and its notes.  Three-quarters of the GB English text ended up in the KJV.  The KJV is a revised GB.

Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 1:19AM #19
CalKnox
Posts: 330
[QUOTE=Verdugo;259404]I agree with you that the Gorman vastly overstates his argument.  But given that, again, how will listing the differences-- whether all or one or two-- settle the argument?  The question is not whether there are differences, the question is which is more reliable.  How will listing the differences resolve that question?  It won't.  What we need, rather, is for each side to list the evidence that there set of mss is more reliable/closer to the original.[/QUOTE]

Listing all the evidence for the reliability of various manuscripts would be too cumbersome for this forum and thread.  Those interested should pursue the topic elsewhere.

Those arguing for the reliability of the mid to late 4th century manuscripts (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) point out their lack of certain words, phrases, and whole verses which appear in the Textus Receptus.  However, one may and must consider quotes in early church fathers, ante-Nicaean literature, and translations predating 350 AD.  If such include these words, phrases and verses, one may argue for their reliability and validity in the Received Text.

Examples: the conclusion or doxology of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13b, or John 7:53-8:11.  Are these the word of God?
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Feb 04, 2008 - 1:25AM #20
CalKnox
Posts: 330
[QUOTE=sterrettc;258122]My point is this: I have quoted someone who might reasonably be considered an expert. [/QUOTE]

An expert's argument is more important than their opinion.  The validity of their argument makes them an expert.  Their un-demonstrated opinion is worth no more than that of the next man.

BTW, this is how we should use biblical commentaries.  Look at the argument for the comment more than the comment itself.  If the argument doesn't hold up, the comment is not worth much.

Valid arguments should lend themselves to succinct summary.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook