NIV/NAB/RSV

[zak89]

I wouldn't read too much into the KJV's lack of capitalization - I don't think that idea was around at the time. As for the aforementioned prosperity preachers, I have to agree - my favorite was the 'point of contact' teaching, based on Matthew 18:19:

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

And from that, they work out this system where you place your hand on the TV screen while they hold their hand out to the camera (creating the illusion that you are touching their hands), and now you can ask for anything you want and get it.

For myself, that idea wouldn't even occur to me reading through the passage, so I don't lose a lot of sleep over it.

KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, which is not the most accurate Greek / Hebrew manuscript of the Bible. Why KJV feels like it's very rich is because the translators left all the matters of interpretation open. It's a literal translation of Hebrew/Greek into English, which creates quite unnatural English. Nowadays it might feel rich and deep but that could be caused by being raised with KJV.

(From a previous thread).

I doubt that, in my case, the richness is due to being raised with KJV, since that would require me to have been raised with the KJV, which is far from the truth. I used NIV till I was a teenager, switched to NKJV because I prefer the source documents - sorry, but I am a TR fan - and moved to KJV because I liked the old English.

So they created idioms in English which still don't make sense in ordinary English. E.g. holy of holies is a literal rendition of a Hebrew expression meaning simply 'most holy'. Saying 'holy of holies' instead of 'most holy' doesn't make a translation richer or deeper, it just shows that the translators don't work up to modern translation standards.

Aw... come on; "Take me in to the most holy place..." is not nearly as pretty as "Take me in to the holy of holies..." So what if it is a Hebrew idiom - we don't even have an equivalent idiom in English, and in my mind, a place called the "holy of holies" would by a very strong implication be the "most holy place".

Of course, I think it's silly to rely too much on one translation because they are all just that - translations.

By the way, what do you consider to be the "most accurate Greek / Hebrew manuscript of the Bible" (I think TR is only the NT)? I know there's a lot of opinions on this point. I'd be interested to know what you folks think about it.

PS: Funny to be discussing this on a Petra fan site- I wonder if you'd find this kind of Biblical/theological literacy on those "other" CCM/fan internets.

[CatNamedManny]

From the previous thread, I wrote:

I think the KJV is considered more poetic simply because it's written in the language of 1611 and not the language of 2010. In 400 years, the language of 2010 will be arcane and people will probably consider it poetic, too. Fact is we probably wouldn't even give a second thought to the poetic nature of the KJV if it weren't for its linguistic similarity to Shakespeare, who died shortly after the KJV was published.

What's especially odd to me is the continuing use of "thee" and "thou" in churches as if they are signs of respect, when in fact at the time of their usage in the KJV, they were used to express familiarity with the newcomer "you" used as the formal address of respect. The KJV is simply a translation written in the language of its day, just like the NIV, ESV and the rest. The only difference is the modern translations are using better source material, and the translators are committed to objectivity, unlike the KJV, which was filtered through King James' preferences for affirming the Anglican Church's practices. (Prime example: interpreting the Greek word for "assembly" or "congregation" as "church").

[knotodiswrld]

A few interesting facts about the KJV. Take them for what you will:

1. The first edition of the KJV included the Apocrypha.

2. The first edition of th KJV was released in 1611. Jamestown, Virginia (also named for King James I of England) was colonized and established in 1609. Thus, the state of Virginia is older than the King James Version of the Bible.

3. At this link you can see a picture of the first page of the Gospel (or "Gofpel" as it was spelled) of John from the first edition of the KJV. Note the tremendous differences in spelling and grammar. Thus the claim that the KJV is "unchanged" from its original form is clearly untrue.

At home, I have a link where you page through the ENTIRE first edition of the King James Bible. It's all images, not copyable text, but it is very interesting. I will post it when I get home.

[brent]

A couple of things. When I started this thread, I wanted to see how many people knew something, if anything about the history of the bible. I was taught that the KJ AV1611 was IT. It is NOT it.

As to the mis-spellings issue. We must remember that those were not necessarily mis-spellings back then. The German bibles had mis-spelled words by today's standards as well. Both were still developing languages when the first translations were made. The first English versions were pretty darn crude compared to the 1600's versions. We also must remember that every letter had to be placed by hand in the press. While the initial transcripts might have been perfect, non-Eastern men translated it as best they could, into a language that was in it's infancy. The KJ was the closest they could get to a word for word translation (at that time, with their limited knowledge and access to lexicons). What the KJV missed in some cases was the thought-for-thought translation.

[knotodiswrld]

A couple of things. When I started this thread, I wanted to see how many people knew something, if anything about the history of the bible. I was taught that the KJ AV1611 was IT. It is NOT it.

You know, there are many people who can never quite get around that little bend. Good for you. The concept that the KJ AV1611 is merely a translation (and as good a translation as could have been produced in England at that time) and not "The Original" is still quite difficult for some people.

But you're not alone. I used to work with a fellow who believed that to deny the perfection of the KJV was tantamount to denying the inspiration of Scripture itself. Like me, he was a professional software developer, so we aren't talking about an uneducated or illiterate person. He was highly intelligent and quite logical. But, like you, he had been taught that the KJV was it, that it was The Bible that God had written.

Like you, he eventually realized that maybe, just maybe, the KJV wasn't 100% perfect. But this teaching has been so prevalent in the U.S. that a good many well-educated Christians still hold to it.

I think a good bit of the problem is the lack of knowledge concerning the history of The Bible and Bible translations. But even people who study this can still come down on the KJV Only side which seems illogical to me.

I was raised Methodist, and thus was never exposed to KJV Only teachings really until I was in college. By that point I knew enough to realize that KJV Only wasn't really consistent with the history of Bible Translation.

As to the mis-spellings issue. We must remember that those were not necessarily mis-spellings back then. The German bibles had mis-spelled words by today's standards as well. Both were still developing languages when the first translations were made. The first English versions were pretty darn crude compared to the 1600's versions.

I didn't mean to imply that the spelling differences in the original edition were misspellings. Far from it. I was merely demonstrating how a language can change over time, even as short a time as 400 years.

As you say, the spellings we see (or would that be "fpellings vee fee") in the original KJV would have been considered perfectly valid in 1611.

As for the earlier English translations being pretty crude, that's what happens when it is being translated by one man who has to hide what he's doing for fear he will be burned at the stake should the local bishop or sheriff find out what he's doing. Like the KJV translators, they did the best they could with what they had.

We also must remember that every letter had to be placed by hand in the press. While the initial transcripts might have been perfect, non-Eastern men translated it as best they could, into a language that was in it's infancy. The KJ was the closest they could get to a word for word translation (at that time, with their limited knowledge and access to lexicons). What the KJV missed in some cases was the thought-for-thought translation.

And that should always be remembered. The KJV translators prayerfully did their level best with the knowledge and materials they had available to them at the time. Whatever criticisms one might have against the KJV, lack of effort on the part of the translators must never be one of them.

Also ... can you imagine being the printer who has to print the whole bible this way!?!? In any translation. Think about how long it takes to read the entire Bible, and then imagine having to place the letters of each page by hand. ("Where are my 'Q's ... Q ... Q .... oh here they are ... no doggone it, those are O's. HEY!!! Who's got the 'Q's?")

[knotodiswrld]

Sorry for the double post, but I thought you guys might find this interesting. The following link will take you to a website that will allow you to page through the original edition of the KJV of the Bible page by page. It's really quite fascinating.

Note that at the top right hand corner there is a setting to enlarge the image so you can actually read it.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/pr ... Position=1

Note also that at the end of the address is a "PagePosition" attribute. You can change this in the address bar of your browser to jump to a specific page. The book of Genesis starts on page 77.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/pr ... osition=77


The Apocrypha starts on page 1005.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/pr ... ition=1005

[zak89]

I hope that no one got the idea that I ascribe in any way to the KJV-only ideas - I'm about as far from that as one can be; it's one of the most *maddening* psuedo-theologies I've run into. Almost as bad as ______ism.

Other than that - I'll just say ditto to what Brent said.