OT: Some thoughts on the KJV

The KJV has been a wonderful translation for 400 years, and has brought countless multitudes the saving Gospel and Word of God.  For that we should all be thankful.  We should recognize its enormous contribution.

However, it can be a obstacle to communicating that same Gospel and Word of God today.  It's archaic language now confuses as much as communicates.  The New Testament was written in the Greek of the street so that the common man could understand.  If the popular common language of the common man was good enough for Saint Paul, it is good enough for me. 

In fact, the KJV came into being in order to communicate to the people of 1611 in their common everyday language.  How sad if we use the KJV to do just the opposite today.  We insult the heritage of the KJV by deifying the KJV.

Michael Childs said:

We insult the heritage of the KJV by deifying the KJV.

Same could be said for Shakespeare on all points.

But I know of no grad school awarding Doctorates of English Literature for dumbed down Shakespearean studies. With all the functional illiterates holding High School diplomas in the USA  is it about time we abandon the written word of God in favor of a picture book? They did print the Manga Bible and the Picture Bible for people who have a hard time reading the KJV. But twelve of my thirteen kids came to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ reading the KJV. (The little guy can't read yet.)

I'm sure some genuinely have a hard time with the vocabulary but there are millions who won't read the Bible no matter what version you lay on their coffee table.

All that said, I agree with you.  Let us get busy sharing the gospel rather than fighting over the versions.

Here's another interesting read

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/28/tiny-church-finds-original-king-james-bible/?hpt=C2

I found it interesting that the way they could tell which printing it was under was from printing errors :-)

 

Robert M. Warren said:

My favorite KJV moment is finding "Easter" instead of "days of Unleavened Bread" in Acts 12.

Robert!               Peace to you!

                                      Thank you for sharing that!                       For some strange reason I've never noticed that before. 

                                                     From now on I will never be able to forget it!             *smile*

Giovanni Baggio said:

KJV has curse words in it. [e.g. expletive, expletive, etc.]

Offhand, I don't recall that.  I do know, however, that there was a printing know as the "Wicked Bible" which dropped the "not" from the commandment regarding committing adultery.

George Somsel said:

Robert M. Warren said:

My favorite KJV moment is finding "Easter" instead of "days of Unleavened Bread" in Acts 12.

 

I do assume that you are aware that "days of Unleavened Bread" is correct, and that the term "Easter" did not come to be used until much later.

Of course, George, of course!  Indeed!

                 That's what makes this "anachronism" so very precious!              *smile*

                                                            Peace!

"12　Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. ²　And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. ³　And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) ⁴　And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. "             Have you come across any "quaternions," lately?

Matthew C Jones said:

But I know of no grad school awarding Doctorates of English Literature for dumbed down Shakespearean studies.

Matthew are you saying that an accurate translation of the scripture in today's English is a "dumbed down scripture"?  

Surely, we want the common person - even the "plough boy" as Mr. Tyndale put it - to understand the scripture?

Matthew C Jones said:

Same could be said for Shakespeare on all points.

I am not opposed to studying 17th Century English literature, but I hardly see the relevance of your comment on Shakespeare to communicating the Word of God.  Surely, you don't think only the intellectuals deserve the Gospel?

Matthew C Jones said:

I am saying Tyndale's plough boy was more literate than the average American.

No, he wasn't.

 

Michael Childs said:

Matthew C Jones said:

I am saying Tyndale's plough boy was more literate than the average American.

No, he wasn't.

Well, not more literally "literate", just more spiritually "literate."  Tyndale did not desire the boy would read, only understand Scriptures better.

The plough (plow) boy functioned better in his 16th Century society than the victims of modern American educational malpractice function in the 21st Century.. Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld, author of "New Illiterates and How You Can Keep Your Child from Becoming One", correctly points out a person has to attend school to become a functional illiterate. They are made, not born. 

A simple child-like faith is all that is needed to receive the Gospel. But once received, we are expected to grow in maturity. That is what the other 99.9% of the Bible is written for. Editing it to a third grade vocabulary will rob the new Christian of deeper teachings in God's word.  Just imagine ancillary works like Stephen Charnock's writings diluted to a third grade level, or John Calvin's or Martin Luther's. You could toss out whole disciplines including textual criticism , socio-rhetorical commentary, discourse analysis, systematic theologies, and Bible backgrounds including Archeological and Near-Eastern studies. (I am not putting these on equal footing with the Biblical canon..)

I believe there is a place for simple language Scriptures. If our goal were only to get everybody saved that would be all we need. But the Great Commission also says to make disciples and teach them. That will require the meat of the Word to follow the milk.

Thanks for reading all that. Now I will agree with you, neither the plough (plow) boy nor American high school graduate are well versed in the Scriptures. Logos is determined to help the latter group change that. [:D]   And at least the plough boy had a job!

I would stand by my statement that "In fact, the KJV came into being in order to communicate to the people of 1611 in their common everyday language.  How sad if we use the KJV to do just the opposite today.  We insult the heritage of the KJV by deifying the KJV."

I would also say that to use the KJV today is contrary to the spirit of the original Greek which the authors of the New Testament used.  They did not use classical Greek.  They wrote to be understood.

I would also say that the KJV has been a great and wonderful gift of God's grace.  I celebrate its anniversary. 

By the way, most of the Pilgrims rejected that modern KJV.  "If the Geneva Bible was good enough for St. Paul..."

MJ. Smith said:

And personally, I'd want to give credit to all those who memorized vast quantities of scripture even if they didn't read it.

In one of Plato's dialogues (Timaeus?) he tells a tale of a man who made an invention and went to the god Thoth with great excitement attempting to explain what a wonderful aid to the memory he had invented.  The god calms him down and gets him to explain what he has invented rather than jumping immediately to praising its utility.  He explained that he had invented writing.  The god then states that what he has invented is not an aid to the memory but an aid to forgetfulness since once something is written there is no need to remember it.  The ancient epics were largely memorized by a few and recited to the many.  The stereotyped epithets and descriptions were aids to the memory in enabling the memorizing of the progress of the narrative.  This was the case with Homer and with the Icelandic sagas.  The capacity of the human mind to retain large amounts of information is prodigious if properly trained. 

In Tyndale’s day, it was a luxury for a plough boy to be able to read; now it is necessary for everyone to have the ability to read. I use the KJV, but I do understand how some of the words in it are obsolete, or have changed in meaning to the opposite of what they once meant. The newer, ‘dummed down’ bible versions, may be written for today’s readers, but lose a lot of the original meaning, and tone of the scriptures. There are bible versions that I like since when there is a word or phrase that is hard to understand, it uses (…) to explain the word, or phrase.

Michael Childs said:

If the Geneva Bible was good enough for St. Paul..

[8-|] I prefer the Geneva Bible over the KJV.  [C]  It is just a little difficult to use in responsive readings in church. And my discussions with KJV-Only friends get derailed when I "mis-quote" verse by slipping into Geneva Bible, NASB or NIV renderings. The whole discussion reverts to the version argument.  [:(]

Michael Childs said:

deifying

deifying?    I know what you are saying. But demanding the retirement of the KJV because you don't know people who read "archaic" English seems extreme. Logos offers the King James Bible Word Book  for those who wish to increase their literacy.

The proliferation of modernized Bible versions can only be explained by these motives. Either the translators are:

1. Convinced all previous versions were poorly done, fraught with error  &/or
2. only had a shelf life of 12 years.....    &/or
3. They know public domain translations can't be licensed for a profit but their new & improved version constitutes another roll-out of profitable merchandise.  &/or
4. they want to rewrite important doctrines out of existence.   or all of the above.

I give the benefit of a doubt and settle on the first motive. But by so doing I wonder what makes the current bevy of scholars so trustworthy when all previous translators did so "poorly"?  I can't remember who to attribute it to but; if a believer reads and follows only the teachings common to all versions, they would become a good disciple.

9. The very Words of God have their greatest meaning/impact when read/heard in the language one thinks in.

Paul Golder said:

9. The very Words of God have their greatest meaning/impact when read/heard in the language one thinks in.

Are you saying the Word of God is only for those who think? Well, that explains why fewer people are heeding it these days.

Matthew C Jones said:

One must be able to think for the Scriptures to be understood. If the vocabulary of one's mind is only single syllable and grammatically simplistic they will have an elementary comprehension, at best.

By this you seem to be implying that all modern translations are simplistic. You might be right if you're thinking of the Good News Translation (a.k.a. Today's English Version), designed for people for whom English is a second language. But NIV, NRSV, LEB, NET and others are not "dumbed down" just because they don't use words like asswage, bolled, bruit, collops, durst, gat, holpen, trow, and wist. These were simple words in a bygone era, but they are not even in a modern collegiate dictionary like Merriam-Webster's, or if they are, they are marked "archaic," or "15th century," or some such. The Bible should be accessible not dumbed down. Anyone who has been a lifelong English speaker today should be able to pick up an English translation and read it without the assistance of a specialized dictionary. With the KJV that is not the case. Not that it can't be read and understood with some preparation, or can't become quite familiar to those who read it regularly or grew up on it (as did I). But I see no reason to persist in using it as a primary version when it keeps 21st century people away from God's Word by its archaic feel. Yes, Shakespeare also requires some study to understand, but let's face it: life would still be meaningful and the gospel available without being able to read Shakespeare. The Bible is a whole lot more important to be able to read and understand.

1 Corinthians 13 is not a fair example of when the KJV can be inscrutable, because it's mostly well-known words (even if they've got the older endings, most English speakers can figure them out), and is even read in the KJV at many weddings so many people have heard it and understand it. There are plenty of other verses that are cited as being difficult to understand for today's readers, even well-educated ones. I'm sure you've seen both sides of the argument before, so I'm not attempting to persuade you.

The KJV is still a beautiful translation and I refer to it often. But I don't like to see people bashing the modern translations in exaggerated ways, because they have their purpose too.

[:)] [:D] [6]

I've been busy away from the computer so this thing is starting to snowball.

Here goes an attempt at the impossible...................

MJ. Smith said:

Oh no - what does this say about the Chinese

The first Japanese Bible printed was done completely with Chinese script. (I own one.)

MJ. Smith said:

Can Korean be printed in the women & children script? Wink

I don't know about Korean but I also have a Japanese Bible written in strictly the women's script.

(See how I am avoiding your real question? [;)] )

Paul Golder said:

(sorry, had to do it)

Sorry, me too. Just for fun, here is a modernized KJV word list for 1 Corinthians 13:1-13

tongues= not even seminary graduates can agree on this Biblical definition
charity = foodstamps & food pantry
sounding = submarine depth radar
tinkling = one of those KJV vulgarities??
bestow = alternative pronunciation for a cofflee shop
goods = another KJV vulgarity??
burned = insulted
***eth = s
Doth = Goth's twin brother
Beareth = streaking
perfect = Bo Derek
childish things = Playstation2
"see through a glass" = "last call"

 

Matthew C Jones said:

i just don't think we need to retire the KJV just yet.

I totally agree, and I think students should be exposed to its language since it has shaped so many authors in the past 400 years. I don't think most people who publish and read the newer translations would ever say any of these should entirely wipe out all usage of the KJV. Yes, KJV-only folks are probably a diminishing breed, which might make them feel entrenched and feel the need to be more defensive than necessary, but thank God for those who preserve this wonderful heritage for the rest of us. Incidentally, the KJV is in no danger of dying out. It is the #2 best seller based on dollar sales, and #3 based on number of unit sales, according to April 2011 data from the Christian Booksellers' Association.

Watch what you say about The Message, because Eugene Peterson is a friend of mine. [;)]  Besides, old hippies need to hear the gospel, too. Actually, most everyone I know who likes The Message uses it only as an alternative translation alongside a familiar favorite, just to jostle them from time to time out of their complacency in reading Scripture passages that they have grown complacent about through familiarity. When you hear them in a new idiom, you sometimes sit up and go "Wow! I'd never thought of that before, but of course that's in the text!" That doesn't happen all the time, by a long shot. I didn't particularly like how he rendered the Psalms, for example. But some of the Gospels and Pauline letters have some particularly good passages in them. I love "the word became flesh and moved into the neighborhood" (John 1:14). I think of The Message very much the way I think of J.B. Phillips' paraphrase of the NT. There are a few verses that really pack a punch and are quite memorable, and for that I'm grateful for the whole thing. My favorite turn of words of Phillips's is "don't let the world squeeze you into its mold" (Rom 12:2).

One major reason that I love Logos so much, is that I can read, and compare numerous different translations of the Bible, I also have easy, and relatively inexpensive access to numerous different commentaries, Bible, and regular dictionaries, and helpful books to understand the Biblical Hebrew and Greek.

Jack Caviness said:

I believe that is more a condemnation of not correctly interpreting the Word. They studied carefully but missed the message.

This is the first commentary I consulted. I believe there are others who would agree that Jesus reprimanded them for revering Scripture over Him.

 

 "The Greek here is ambiguous. It could mean “You study the Scriptures” or “Study the Scriptures.” We should almost certainly take it as indicative.114 Throughout this section Jesus is taken up with the Jews and their attitude. Here he points out that they search the Scriptures constantly (which we know from other sources they did most diligently), thinking in this way to find eternal life.116 And, indeed, they might have found it thus, for the Scriptures, like the “works” (v. 36) and the Father (v. 37), bear witness to him. Had they rightly read the Scriptures they would no doubt have come to recognize the truth of his claims. But they read them with a wooden and superstitious reverence for the letter,118 and they never penetrated to the great truths to which they pointed. The result is that in the presence of him to whom the Scriptures bear witness, in the presence of him who could have given them life, they are antagonistic. The words convey a rebuke for the wrong attitude of the Jews to scripture, coupled with a profound respect for the sacred writings." Cf. Moffatt: 

 

Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (292–293). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

They were worshiping the book, In the very presence  of the author.