How many translations?

Why change? Because language has changed in four centuries.

Some words have long gone out of use, like collops, coney, divers (in the sense of "various").

Some words still exist in modern English, but with different meanings to those they had in 1611. Examples are: prevent (used to mean "go before"; now means "stop something from happening"): tire (used to mean "turban"; now means "become sleepy, or make sleepy" or in the U.S. "the rubber covering in the wheels of cars"): carriages (used to mean "supplies"; now means "a horse-drawn vehicle" or "a railway coach or compartment").

Some words were perfectly acceptable in 1611, but I suggest there are some which are now used only as very impolite slang. The word used for "urine" in the KJV in, for instance, Isaiah 36.12.



The way words are put together in phrases and sentences has also changed. 2 Corinthians 6.11-13 is one example of this:

11 ¶ O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. 12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. 13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.


​

Is the NKJV more intelligible here? Does it take away anything from the truth of God's Word?:

11 ¶ O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open. 12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. 13 Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open.


​

Another example is what Jesus said in the garden of Gethsemane when the high priest's servant had his ear cut off: "Suffer ye thus far." The meaning is, "Permit even this," but that is obscured by the old words and format.

Note that none of what I have said is advocating any kind of "dumbing down" of God's Word. I am not a supporter of so-called "translations" belittle the person and work of the Saviour, or take out references to His shed blood, or anything of that nature.

 

Changing the meaning of the words

Indeed we have changed the meanings: virgin no longer means: never having carnally known a man. We have changed the meaning to somewhere between fornication with a Roman soldier and For Ever Virgin, Mother of God.

Offering babies to Molech used to be considered abomination. Now we call it: freedom of choice.

Homosexuality, also a Biblical abomination, is now called: alternate lifestyle. Some folks have bishops with alternate lifestyles. Has anyone watered down pedophilia yet?

Confusion: a basic military tactic. Stop forward movement by decoy, camouflage and ploy. A stopped target is much easier to destroy. We have our op orders, why are we still trying to figure out frag orders?(private pun)

The Lord said to preach the Word, not count jots and tittles.

I must have missed the class on the virginity dilemma in Esaias. Is this part of Agnostics 801?

As for me and my household--we believe. Do you get my drift?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

P.S. to last post

Re: antiquated words in the KJV.

This has been a blessing for me. Take an analytical concordance(I use Young's) and a KJV--look up the unfamiliar words and learn the original meanings. Read everyplace a particular word is used. Talk about growing in grace and knowledge--it will put some "keen" on your double edged sword. Modern translations do not do that for me.

Preach The Word.

Sola Scriptura

Bro. James

 

Sort of like studying the original languages through the eyes of translators who lived 400 years ago.

Without guidance, people fall,
but with many counselors there is deliverance.
Proverbs 11:14 Holman's CSB

Rob

 

You seem to have mistaken my meaning, Brother James. I was talking about ordinary, wholesome English words that have come to mean something different now to what they meant in 1611, or have gone out of common use. I was not talking about justifying sin by weakening words. If you look again at the examples I used (words like coney, carriages, divers, and tire) using modern words for the same things (like rock badger, supplies, various and turban) is not even remotely like saying that Jesus was not born of a virgin, or that it is somehow acceptable to offer of children to Molech, or that homosexuality is right.

Do you believe that the old English words like "coney" and "carriages" are in some way more holy than the modern equivalents such as "rock badger" and "supplies"? If so, what is your basis for believing it?

I disagree with you that "virgin" no longer means "never having carnally known a man". My (secular) dictionary defines it as "somebody who has never had sexual intercourse".

I have no idea what "op orders" and "frag orders" are, so I am afraid your pun was lost on me.

Nor do I understand your reference to the "class on the virginity dilemma in Esaias" and have never heard of Agnostics 801.

 

OOPS! Typo

One pointed this out to me privately, although I missed the PM early this AM. Thanks, for noticing!

That should read "the Geneva Bible was only published in 1560", and not in 1860. Otherwise John Calvin would have been a re-ee-ee-al-l-ly old dude, if he made it to 354 years of age.

Shows why i shouldn't not pOsT when I are re ally to too tire d to caTch they TypOs, No?

Ed

P.S. "Put a sock in it, Language Cop! I really don't want to hear it from you, this early in the morning!"

 

An awfully lot of implications and insinuations are contained in this post, including a couple of things which, if only read on the surface, are very misleading.

First, a correction, though. There is no such person known as Easter-eth, to my limited knowledge. The person you are referring to (perhaps the same as the legendary adulterous Queen Semiramis, the wife of Nimrod, who conceived her child, Tammuz, after Nimrod's death) is known as also as Ishtar, Astarte, Isis, Ashtoreth, and Ashtaroth, among other appellations, including Queen of Heaven.

The problem with all of this is that too much of it is built on the unsupported speculations and allegations of Alexander Hislop. Which would make this on the same order as these cults, no?? Too bad we don't see more individuals like Evangelist Ralph Woodrow, who was a definite supporter of Hislop's ideas, but when challenged, actually researched this, and has now publicly refuted both his previous stand and many of Hislop's speculations, as well. [Name deleted!] and [A second name deleted!] could profitably well take some lessons from Brother Woodrow, IMO, as probably many of us could, as well.

The misleading part about the Watchtower (Jehovah's Witness) cult, is what I am referring to, however. This organization was around for 75 years before publishing the NWT in 1960 (NT in 1950), so it is a bit of a stretch to suggest that the group used a version of the Bible that would not exist for 75 years in their early days. They would sometimes use the ASV after it appeared in 1901, chiefly because of the use of 'Jehovah' in the OT for the Hebrew tetragrammon, often rendered as YHWH or Yahweh.

Likewise their Greek interlinear did not appear until the 1960s as well. But they were basically 'founded' with the KJV, just as were the Mormons. And both of these are in fact, properly referred to as a "cult", IMO. Gotta' get to work, so cannot play any longer, today.

Ed

 

And, of course......nothing you've mentioned has anything to do with modern versions of Scripture. Nice try, though.

 

My favorite translations:

Modern Language Bible aka New Berkeley Version
NASB (both the 1977 and 1995 update)
ASV of 1901 (like it better than the KJV).
Knox Version (very expressive!)

The translation by William F. Beck is also a gem.

 

Even David Cloud KJVO man of renoun has published a KJ dictionary of 521 words which have changed meaning and usage over the years. You can go to his site and order it for $3.95.
If you were to have that and an actual 1611 Translation with side notes and all you could be in pretty good shape, or you could just get a NKJV and save time and trouble.:godisgood:

 

Yeah , the NKJ would be an improvement over the KJV . However , Cloud's book is not as extensive as it could be . Having the meanings of just 521 words is merely scratching the surface . What about the more than 4,000 words from the 1769 ( yes , the Benjamin Blayney edition ) which can't be found in the best one-volume dictionaries ?

 

Revising the Theology of men or the Grace of God?

Aren't we smart--we have been trying to revise God ever since we fell out of the garden, we also contemplate our navels a lot. It all boils down to one issue: Sirs, what must I do to be saved? (How do I get back in the garden--out of this sin pit?)

Some say grace; some say good works; some say grace and good works. What part of "you must be born again" do we need to revise? Nicodemus did not understand. Jn. 3., an example of an unregenerated master of religion. He was clueless.

"Noone comes to the Father until the Spirit draws him". "Faith comes by hearing, hearing by the Word of God"
Are we having difficulty with "no"? "No-(o)ne righteous, no-t one". "No" has only one meaning.

Until we resolve the "born again" issue, chasing nuances of translation is mostly academic trivial pursuit--in double jeopardy.

Will someone please translate baptism to: dip, plunge or immerse, instead of the present transliteration? Angel to: messenger, would be nice too. I doubt the pedo-baptists will allow it.

What have we done with the children? Have we sent them to the Lord of the Rings? St. Nicolaus? We are sending many of them to Molech, physically and spiritually.

Preach The Word,

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Then we should go back to the stone and papyrus editions.

 

A somewhat revised old saying:

"If it ain't broken, please don't try to fix it"(my version)

Anecdotal of course: My father in law learned to read using a KJV. The Lord found him there too. Many lost souls were found during The Great Depression, using a KJV, inspite of all the antique words.

Have a blessed day,

Bro. James

 

This has been done; here are some that I know translate baptizo as "immerse": Translation from the Original Greek (Worrell, 1904). Worrell was an American Baptist educator and made a light revision of the ASV New Testament text. The Essential New Testament by Dennis Beatty et. al. (2004); I have had email correspondence with Pastor Beatty. The Better Version of the NT (Estes,1973/1984) is based upon the Griesbach Greek. I believe that Coulter's New Testament in its Original Order (2002) based upon Stephanus' 1550 (TR) text also uses "immerse", and there may be others.

 

Baptizo

Thankyou for the pointer. Are any of these translations from pedobaptists?

Also, there were serious errors regarding baptizo long before 1611. Early churches had trouble with baptism and circumcision, which indicates a weakness in the doctrine of sovereign grace. Interesting: some "orthodox" Christians immerse--infants too?? But they think they are washing sin away--wrong answer. Then there are the LDS who immerse, some even by proxy. Not sure what they are washing.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

And they use the KJV, too!

 

According to what I have read, the 1798 English translation from the Greek by Nathaniel Scarlett was the first English translation to use "immerse" rather than baptize.

The 1842 revision of the KJV by several Biblical scholars including Baptists also used "immerse."

The 1850 KJV N. T. with emendations by Baptists Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff also used "immerse."

The 1866 American Bible Union Version also used "immerse."

 

LDS and KJV

While they may show the KJV right next to the Book of Mormon, their real faith and practice comes from BOM, Pearl of Great Price and other writings from their prophets back to Joseph Smith Jr. The BOM is a curious collection of spurious writings, which are highly incredulous. They are supposedly from hundred of years before the English of King James, yet there are paraphrases of KJV idiom, including some of the translators errors. I would say they use the KJV only as it suits their purpose, quoting scripture out of context to justify their false teachings--a Christian facade. That group stands or falls on their founder: Joseph Smith Jr. He is either a true prophet or a false prophet. There is no middle ground.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Amen, Brother Tonyhipps -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Of course, if you have someone to teach you
how to use Strong's then you can get some insite
into what the scripture is saying. But understanding
English, you have a good plan.

I wrote the following on 5 July 2006 and found
that thread closed while I was compiling my answer.
This post does relate to the OP (opening post)
question.

-----------------------------------
to:
Bible Versions/Translations
Do you use the 1611 KJV? (closed 5 July 2006)
Do you use the 1611 KJV?


Cailiosa: //Also the biggest issue here is not nessasarily what manuscript
it came from, but wether the translaters used that manuscript
in the way God intended it. I can take a manuscript of anything
I want and change it anyway I want. If you want
to know if the Bible you are using is correct or
not then look at BOTH.//

Unfortunately there are those who damn my last three Bibles:

NIV = New Internatinal Version
nKJV = New King James Bible
HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003)

without checking the translators or the source manuscript
in sufficient detail to make a rational judgement.
Thus they damn my Bible with unrighteous judgment -- I
don't want to be in their shoes.

The Old Testament (OT) requirement was two or more witnesses.
"One Book Only"-ism negates the OT requirement to have two
or more witnesses.

To have mulitple Bible witnesses,
I've got a paper Bible with these four side-by-side:

KJV1873 Edition = standard King James Version
NIV = New International Version
NASB = New American Standard Bible
NLT = New Living Translation

To have mulitple Bible witnesses,
I've got an electronic Bible from e-sword.com that has these
three witnesses side-by-side:

Geneva Bible (1587)
KJV1769 Edition with Strong's Numbers
KJV1611 Edition

Having used the KJV1769 as my primary Bible in excess
of 34 of my 54 years of Chrisitanhood, I am more familiar with
the wording and spelling of the KJV1769 than any other
witness.


A short history of Ed and the KJV1611 Edition.
Here are the definitions I suggested before:

1611 KJV - A Bible called 'The King James Version (KJV)' translated from
1605 to 1611 and lightly editied into dozens of versions since.

KJV1611 Edition - Specific editions of the KJV published in 1611
(there were several, about the third of which is being reprinted
in the 20-oughts by Henderson & Nelson.

In the early 90s I went to the Bible Museum in Eureka Springs,
Arkansas. They have several ancient KJVs including an
Adulter's Bible (the 7th commandment is, OOPS!, 'thou shalt commit
adultry' )
Across the street in the book store they were selling photocopies
of pages of the KJVs (Gothic print and all). I bought a couple
of pages. I though my Daughter, in the Norman, Oklahoma
Authorian Order of Avalon (AOA), would be interested in a
nearly mideival Gothic font Bible.

I thought I might see if there were any reprints of the
original KJV1611 Edition around - there weren't any.
I got on the internet (or whatever proto-internet might have
been handy). I did a search of "1611" and "KJV" using the then
search engines (might take 45 minutes to do a whole search,
and one payed for the connection then BY THE MINUTE.)
I found out, nobody who uses 'KJV' and '1611' in their
web page name uses the KJV1611 Edition Bible.
There were only about 80 such sites then, only 1 or 2 of which
even knew (or would admit) of the existance of a KJV1611 Edition
different from the KJV1769 in common use.
I had done run into the proto-hyper-KJVO movement's
deception (often self-deception) about the Bibles, the KJVs,
and the Received Texts.

Phillip: //Then there is the question of whether or not the KJV
or the Modern Versions use the best textual basis.
This can be debated all night, but then again, there
is no difference in doctrine between the KJV
and the mainstream "accepted" modern versions.//

Amen, Brother Phillip - Preach it! :thumbs:


Eliyahu: //The change from Iesus to Jesus or some change from
singular to plural, etc are the corrections of minor matters.//

I respectfully disagree.
Consider your personal salvation, if i change it from
singular 'salvation' to plural 'salvations' then I have
changed the basic doctrine of salvation(s). A change of
singular to plural. Read the 'one passage':
one Lord, one faith, one Baptism - NOT 'just one Bible'.

RSR: //First, the translators had been told not to insert
commentary into the translation and to stick closely
to the Bishops' Bible and other previous editions. //

Included in James instructions were commands
that "The ordinary Bible, read in the church,
commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed,
and as little altered as the original will permit"
and "No marginal notes at all to be affixed,
but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words,
which cannot, without some circumlocution,
so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text."//

Sometime along the way, it became common to drop the
'translator margin notes' concerning the Greek.
This was done likely by the unauthorized USA editions,
the printers not understanding what the marign notes ment.
But then the average literate person in the pew didn't
know what the 'translator margin notes' means and the
folks coming into the ministry straight from the
pew to the field (no training in between) didn't know
what the 'translator margin notes' were about.
Quite frankly the 'translator margin notes' in
the KJV1611 Edition Bible squash the
'God wrote only one book' movement in the bud:
the translaters of the 1611 KJV used multiple witnesses
(as required by the OT).