KJV Was Not So Easy To Read Before 1900

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Jun 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Noah Webster published his slight revision of the KJV in 1833. This is an important paragraph from his Preface.

    "But in the lapse of two or three centuries,changes have taken place which,in particular passages,impair the beauty,in others,obscure the sense of the original languages. Some words have fallen into disuse;and the signification of others,in popular use,is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version.The effect of these changes is,that some words are not understood by common readers...other words being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made,present a wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced,and different from that of the original languages,they do not present to the reader the Word of God."
     
  2. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whilst I agree with the essence of what Webster wrote, I still find it significant that evangelical, fundamental Canadian seminaries and Bible colleges through the 40's, 50's and 60's used a KJV as the main text. We had no problem reading it, and developing sound theology, and preaching from it throughout those years.

    One can learn the differences in languages. Maybe that is because we are Canadian and not American. Wait, two of my main professors were American>>>>

    Cheers,

    Jim

    PS. Americans had trouble understanding some of my language when I first got off the boat from England.
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Perhaps literate Englishmen in the first quarter of the 16th century read copies of the second Wycliffe version. It might have been hard going because it was more than 100 years old --but certainly not as readable as Tyndale's in the late 1520's.

    The earlier Whclife translation would have been a rough road to hoe.

    At least you didn't get off a turnip truck. :)
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV translators themselves updated, made easier, or revised many renderings in the 1568 Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was officially a revision. Often the updatings or revisions came from the 1560 Geneva Bible. On the other hand, there are a good number of other places where the KJV kept the more archaic language of the Bishops' Bible even though they had updated it in similar places and even though the 1560 Geneva Bible already may have had clearer, more understandable language than the Bishops'.

    Esther 1:4 glorious worship of his greatness (Bishops)
    honour of his excellent majesty (KJV)
    Esther 1:11 To fetch (Bishops) To bring (KJV)
    Esther 1:12 his indignation (Bishops) his anger (KJV)
    Esther 2:22 Whereof also Mardocheus gat knowledge (Bishops)
    And the thing was known to Mordecai (KJV)
    Esther 3:5 bowed not the knee (Bishops) bowed not (KJV)
    Esther 4:12 certified Mardocheus (Bishops) told to Mordecai (KJV)
    Esther 6:6 would fain bring unto worship (Bishops) delighteth to honour (KJV)
    Esther 6:7 unto worship (Bishops) to honour (KJV)
    Esther 6:9 raiment (Bishops) apparel (KJV)
    Esther 6:12 Haman gat him home in all the haste mourning (Bishops)
    Haman hasted to his house mourning (KJV)
    Esther 7:7 a mischief (Bishops) evil (KJV)
    Job 1:5 and gat up early (Bishops) and rose up early (KJV)
    Job 4:8 For as I have proved by experience (Bishops) Even as I have seen (KJV)
    Job 4:10 teeth of lions whelps (Bishops) teeth of the young lions (KJV)
    Job 5:2 wrathfulness (Bishops) wrath (KJV)
    Job 5:2 the ignorant (Bishops) the silly one (KJV)
    Job 5:17 blessed is the man (Bishops) happy is the man (KJV)
    Job 5:22 destruction and dearth (Bishops) destruction and famine (KJV)
    Job 5:25 posterity (Bishops) offspring (KJV)
    Job 6:7 The things that sometime I might not away withal (Bishops)
    The things that my soul refused to touch (KJV)
    Job 6:23 hand of the tyrants (Bishops) hand of the mighty (KJV)
    Job 7:12 a whale fish (Bishops) a whale (KJV)
    Job 10:21 Afore I go thither from whence (Bishops) Before I go whence (KJV)
    Job 12:6 they that maliciously meddle against God dwell without care (Bishops)
    they that provoke God are secure (KJV)
    Job 12:17 out of their wits (Bishops) fools (KJV)
    Job 15:32 afore his time (Bishops) before his time (KJV)
    Job 17:1 I am hard at death’s door (Bishops) the graves are ready for me (KJV)
    Job 17:2 Froward men are with me (Bishops) Are there not mockers with me (KJV)
    Job 18:10 a pitfall (Bishops) a trap (KJV)
    Job 18:19 any posterity (Bishops) any remaining (KJV)
    Job 19:19 All my most familiars (Bishops) All my inward friends (KJV)
    Job 20:8 vanish as a dream (Bishops) fly away as a dream (KJV)
    Job 20:15 shall he parbreak (Bishops) he shall vomit (KJV)
    Job 21:13 in wealthiness (Bishops) in wealth (KJV)
    Job 22:10 compassed about (Bishops) are round about (KJV)
    Job 23:11 his high way have I holden (Bishops) his way have I kept (KJV)
    Job 27:13 tyrants (Bishops) oppressors (KJV)
    Job 27:21 A vehement east wind (Bishops) The east wind (KJV)
    Job 28:18 gabis (Bishops) pearls (KJV)
    Job 30:9 jesting stock (Bishops) byword (KJV)
    Job 30:27 My bowels seethe (Bishops) My bowels boiled (KJV)

    Job 31:25 my hand gat so much (Bishops) mine hand had gotten much (KJV)
    Job 34:23 For God will not lay (Bishops) For he will not lay (KJV)
    Job 35:14 thou sayest to God (Bishops) thou sayest (KJV)
    Job 36:16 quiet replenished with fatness (Bishops) should be full of fatness (KJV)
    Job 39:5 bonds of the wild mule (Bishops) bands of the wild ass (KJV)
    Job 41:7 the fish panier with his head (Bishops) his head with fish spears (KJV)
    Job 42:10 as he had afore (Bishops) as he had before (KJV)
     
  5. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Updates are great, if that is all they are.........
    “update” (To make more modern)

    But the entire KJB controversy is centered around, how some use an “update”, to remove verses or passages, from God’s Word.
    ------------------------------
    A good example of what I am talking about, would be an encyclopedia.
    To “update” an encyclopedia, you "must" take into account, new discoveries, new inventions, etc.

    But, when updating “the Bible”, the only changes that are "permitted", are updating words, that have changed in meaning.......
    E.G. “Conversation”, could be changed to “lifestyle”.
    -------------------------------
    The reason things like “new discoveries”, should not be taken into account, when updating “the Bible”, is because of it’s “supernatural quality”.

    The Bible is not like an encyclopedia; It is God’s Holy Word, that He gave to mankind.
    It was “completed”, hundreds of years ago(long before the KJB), and at that point, it became somewhat “untouchable”.

    At a certain point in history(probably around the time of the canonization), the Bible(in what ever language), became the finished product, that God gave to man.

    From that moment on, all translations into the world’s languages, should have been required, to be word for word translations(because of verbal inspiration).
    --------------------------------
    With this steadfast rule in mind, no Christian would have "ever" had any problem with what ever updates, would be made to the Bible, because all that would be happening would be the replacing of archaic words.
    (What a wonderful world that would have been.)

    But.....that was not to be.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Word for word? Could you show me where 'God forbid' appears in the TR in Romans 6v1-2 please?
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You still don't get it SL. Modern English Bible versions (for the most part) do not update the KJV. They start with the original languages --not something as recent as a few hundred years ago.

    You keep thinking thatb the KJV is the starting point --the standard. You are in grave error.

    As far as this removal business of yours -- the KJV added numerous passages --not with evil intentions -- but added them they did indeed.




    Then why not get the closest thing to that and use an interlinear? It makes nonsense English,but go for it.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Based on a consistent applications of your comments, KJV-only advocates should have no problems with the NKJV, the KJV21, or KJ2000.

    The NKJV is a revision [updating] of the KJV and a translation of the same original language texts as the KJV in the same way that the KJV is a revision [updating] of the pre-1611 English Bibles and a translation of the original language texts.

    The KJV made the same-type changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles as the NKJV made to the KJV.

    Just as printing errors can be properly corrected in the making of a revision so can any errors made by translators or editors.
     
  9. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    You are absolutely correct.

    I am only being “labeled” KJVO, because I reject the CT.
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    But you also reject the NKJV which never uses the CT.
     
  11. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    its NOT the "Real King james!"

    or something along those lines!
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    This is from The Critical review of 1763: "many false interpretations,ambiguous phrases,obsolete words and indelicate expressions ..excite the scorner."

    The Critical Review was a periodical which was put out by Samuel Johnson and others. The comments above were made after the revision by Paris,but before the Blayney edition.
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I was just curious if stilllearning has had a chance to examine the TR for this yet? The contention was made that translations must be 'word for word.'
     
  14. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello again C4K

    Yes(a 1000 times YES), translations “should” be word for word(as best as they can be from one language to another).

    And the reason this is so very important is because of “verbal inspiration”.
    The “WORDS” of the Bible, are what were inspired, not the concepts.
    ------------------
    As for your question about Romans 6:1,2......
    I do not have a copy of the TR, but I have been doing some research in this area.

    We as Christians, need to have an attitude about “truth”, along the lines of......“Let God be true, and every man is a liar”!

    Therefore if a man, points out two words found in “the Bible”, and tells me that they are not suppose to be there, than I am to automatically question what the man says, in favor of what “the Bible” says.

    But, because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, I am looking in to it, by looking at what other Bible translations say, at Romans 6:1,2

    So far, I have checked out William Tyndale’s New Testament(1526) and the Geneva Bible(1557), and both of them include the words “God forbid”, in this passage.
    ----------------------
    So therefore, I would say, God forbid, that I should take a man’s word, over the Word of God.....But I am still searching for a Bible, that does not include those words.
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    You can find the TR online or on software like e-sword. It makes no difference what other translations say. You can look at any edition of the TR that you won't and will not find it. Your clear implication that I am a liar aside, though an excellent choice and the one I prefer it is not literal.
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    BTW you can see the Scrivner TR of the verse in this thread. You also might try Berry's interlinear which uses the TR.
     
  17. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    454
    It was Tyndale who translated me yenoito as 'God forbid!' in 15 places in the NT.
    All the early translations followed him. A literal rendering would be 'Let it not be!' or 'May it not be.'

    I think 'God forbid' is a perfectly good translation. 'Let it not be' is a sort of prayer. It is certainly no worse or less understandable han the NIV's 'By no means!' It is however, a piece of dynamic equivalence in the KJV.

    Steve
     
  18. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whether the common English expression, "God forbid" is present in Romans 6:1,2 or not does not change the meaning of the two verses.

    The NIV simply says, "By no means". Berkley version says, "Not at all". I like J.B. Phillips use of "what a ghastly thought!" in his New Testament in modern English.

    If we take every single word in a modern translation to be inspired, we might find ourselves in a mass pack of mud of questionable meanings.

    I think of translating German into English, where we have the boy sliding down a hill, and the pail of water, when in English we best say it, "the boy fell down the hill carrying a pail of water." Surely you know that poem about Jack and Jill?

    We have never claimed "verbal" inspiration of any translation, including the AV. My groups notation is that "we believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the original manuscripts."

    There are enough areas of serious contention than to debate over spurious ones, in my opinion.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    To be fair even Wycliffe used God forbede. He used the Vulgate and I dont have one to hand.
     
  20. Johathan01

    Johathan01
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0

    Many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes by which they merely removed archaisms, etc. The NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its Greek text, the Textus Receptus. Therefore, the NKJV is not a revision of the King James Bible.

    Here's a few comparisons: Acts 3:26 (KJV) God, having raised up his Son. The NKJV says: His Servant.

    Acts 17:22 I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. (KJV) Very religious (NKJV)


    1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (KJV). who are being saved (NKJV)

    When we make further comparisons, we see that the NKJV agrees with the NIV, NASV, ASV, RSV, Catholic NAB, etc.on these and other passages and not with the KJV.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...