A Mutated Version ?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I was looking through a book in the library . It's called "A Textual History Of The King James Bible" by David Norton . Here are some of his thoughts found on pages 126 and 127 .

    The modern King James Version is a mutated version of a seventeenth century text with partially modernized spelling , punctuation and presentation .Some of the mutations are necessary corrections of errors of negligence in the original , some of them are deliberate changes made in good faith to improve the text according to the judgment of many successive individuals , individuals who often worked anonymously and even more often left no account of their work . Many of these changes do not stand up to critical examination , and the spelling , punctuation and presentation are all in acute need of further modernization .
     
  2. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is he talking about the Mkjv or is he using the word modern to refer to the 1769 KJV?
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    He is referencing the 1769 Benjamin Blayney version .
     
  4. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's funny.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    It might be "funny" to think of the KJV as a mutant version . But consider the possibility of a literate native English speaker who had never heard of it . It's neither fish nor fowl .

    The language was dated when it was released in 1611 . Tyndale's translation of almost a century before sounds more modern than the KJV much of the time .

    There were some updates along the way . But Paris and in particular Blayney in 1769 tried to improve it a lot . But he fell short ( according to modern English usage of say 1830 ) .

    The NKV and other versions of that kind have tried to fill the niche so that a person of today is able understand God's precious Word .
     
  6. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I saw as funny was the "new" version of 1769 was called a mutation. That's what KJVOs call our modern versions isn't it? (or some similar insult?)
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I guess KJVO's have put a line in the sand at 1769 . Any translation after that date is new , modern and has watered-down doctrines .

    But yeah , Mr. Norton calls the Blayney revision "new" .
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Many KJV-only advocates think and assume that they are using a 1769 KJV edition today.

    All spelling updating was not finished by 1769 in KJV editions. The 1762 Cambridge edition, a 1769 Cambridge edition, the 1769 Oxford edition, and even later Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1799, 1804, and even as late as 1810 still have a character shaped like “f” for long “s” in many words. A few examples of the use of this character in the 1795 Oxford KJV edition: “fin” (Ps. 32:5), “fee” (Ps. 34:12), “chafe” (Ps. 35:5), “wife” (Ps. 36:3), “flay” (Ps. 37:14), “feed” (Ps. 37:26), “fore” (Ps. 38:2), “foul” (Ps. 42:1), and “fake” (Ps. 44:26). Hundreds and even thousands of words in the 1769 KJV had this character shaped like "f" for long "s."

    The spelling of other words was also changed or updated after 1769, some after 1840, and some even after 1885. The change in several words may have been made after 1804 [“befel“ to “befell“ (2 Sam. 15:12), “Judea” to “Judaea” (Matt. 2:1), “Lebbeus” to “Lebbaeus” (Matt. 10:3), “Arimathea” to “Arimathaea” (Matt. 27:57), “Idumea” to “Idumaea” (Mark 3:8), “Alpheus” to “Alphaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Thaddeus” to “Thaddaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Bartimeus” to “Bartimaeus” (Mark 10:46), “Cesar’s” to “Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), “vail” to “veil” (Mark 15:38), etc.] although some present KJV editions have gone back to the earlier spelling in same cases. Some words were changed after 1840 in Oxford editions [“houfhold” or “houshold” to “household” (Gen. 18:19), “houfholds” or “housholds” to “households” (Gen. 42:33), “houfholder” or “housholder” to “householder” (Matt. 13:27), “broidered” to “broided” (1 Tim. 2:9), “injoined” to “enjoined” (Heb. 9:20), etc.]. A few spelling changes were made after 1880 in Oxford editions: [“enquire” to “inquire” (Gen. 24:57), “ax” to “axe” (Deut. 19:5), “ancles” to “ankles” (Ezek. 47:3), “sope“ to “soap“ (Mal. 3:2), “ancle” to “ankle” (Acts 3:7), “enquired” to “inquired” (1 Pet. 1:10), etc.]. Some spelling changes were made after 1900 in present standard Cambridge editions.

    There were also some other changes made after 1769.
     
  9. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,113
    Likes Received:
    219
    Shhhhhhh - you may upset some folks
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I thought the above was interesting in light of the 400th anniversay of the 1611.

    Here are some thoughts of Henry Hallan (1777-1859) regarding AVolatry:

    "...the style of this translation is in general so enthusiastically praised that no one is permitted either to qualify or even explain the grounds of his approbation. It is held to be the perfection of our English language...It abounds,in fact,especially in the Old Testament,with obsolete phraselogy,and with single words long since abandoned,or retained only in provincial use."
     
  11. BobinKy

    BobinKy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    Messages:
    845
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here we go round the mulberry bush again.

    For the record--I enjoy reading the King James Bible and I wish some of you would let it be.

    ...Bob
     
  12. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,113
    Likes Received:
    219
    I wonder if we were to spend as much time witnessing as we do about arguing the KJV, what could be accomplished for the Kingdom of of our Mighty Lord?
     
  13. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    Thank you Brother Salty!

    :applause:
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I enjoy reading the KJV. I enjoy reading the 1560 Geneva Bible, the NKJV.

    Do believers actually object to anyone reading the KJVor do they actually object to the making of exclusive only claims for the KJV that are not actually stated in the Bible?
     
  15. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,618
    Likes Received:
    44
    Yes, seems the most KJB-Obsessed here are not the KJVOs.:laugh:
     
  16. RAdam

    RAdam
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's what's funny to me: people get on here and blast the KJVO guys for being against modern versions and only wanting to use the KJ. To these people, the KJV Onlyists are extremists. So what do they do but go into the other extreme by constantly attacking the KJV. That is hilarious. What's more is they typically turn hypocritical by stating their belief that a person should be able to use whatever english translation they desire, and then turning around and blasting the KJV. If you are free to use the NIV, or NASB, or the NKJV, or the CEB, then I'm just as free to use the KJV. Some of you would get mad if I attacked some of the awkwardness in the NIV, but it's perfectly fine for you to spend tons of time attacking the KJV. How about you use what you want and I'll use what I want? If someone attacks you for using a "modern version" ignore the poster. Someone presenting an extreme KJV Onlyist view isn't a valid excuse for you to blast the KJV all the time.
     
  17. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    So you don't think that KJVO's are extremists?!

    You are way off in your critical skills. I have never attacked the KJV. I have demonstrated that it has a number of errors -- but it is still the Word of God as much as the NLT or NIV for instance. Yet KJVO's will deny that the modern versions are the Word of God. They will call them perversions. They will say all manner of lies to support their sinful cause. I have never said that the KJV is a perversion or any nasty-type things that KJVO's are capable of. You really need to examine what you type. You are totally wrong.

    Of course anyone is free to use whatever version they so desire. That has never been an issue.

    You really ought to invest in a dictionary and see what the word attack means.

    If you think I have been attacking the KJV -- then why don't you take your own advice and ignore any threads in which I have posted dealing with the KJV. Be consistent.

    If you want to see examples of actual attacks then survey material against the TNIV for real attacks. The level of attacks were of a kind I have never, nor will I ever come close to in my critiques of the KJV.
     
  18. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know who said this but it was on Twitter and was quoted on another forum:

    "If some preachers spent as much time preaching King Jesus as they do preaching King James they might see more people come to the KINGdom."

    I should add- that goes for both sides.
     
  19. RAdam

    RAdam
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, some of the KJVO's are extremists. I have never said otherwise. But going into the opposite ditch is just as bad.

    If you wanted to make a legitimate case against the KJVO's who claim that the modern versions are not the word of God you would do so, not by attacking the version they use and hold to be perfect, but by supporting the versions you hold to be the word of God. Instead, you attack the KJV in order to undermine their position. This is incredibly foolish and obviously does not work. In addition to this, you are attacking a book you hold to be the word of God, which I just cannot understand.

    I'm a believer in the doctrines of grace. If I'm speaking to one who doesn't believe those things and I spend my time doing nothing but attacking their position, I'll never successfully lead them away from their beliefs and over to mine. This is why I've said before and will say again that most people spend more time attacking the beliefs of others rather than presenting their beliefs.

    Another thing you are guilty of is justifying your own arrogant and mean behavior by pointing to such behavior in others. Apparently you haven't searched for errors in those sections of the bible which speak of not recompensing evil for evil. If someone wants to spit venom at the KJV, that doesn't give me right to attack their versions and spit venom in return.

    Finally, what is sinful about holding a position that the KJV is word perfect and the modern versions are not as good, or that they are perversions, or anything of that kind? What is sinful about that? Perhaps they are wrong in their opinion, but I fail to see sin therein.
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2

    Are you suggesting that it is not wrong to add men's opinions, speculations, and assumptions to the Bible or to read them into verses that do not state them?

    Are you suggesting that it is not wrong to claim a position is Biblical without showing that the position is actually taught in the Bible? KJV-only posters suggest or imply that their position is commanded by God and is taught in the Bible when it is not.

    Is not the evident pride and arrogancy seen in the exclusive KJV-only position wrong?
     

Share This Page

Loading...