Could the 1611 KJV have been better?

I was just reading in Matthew this past week and came across one of those.

The phrase, "raise the dead" is found in the "minority" texts [read Alexandrian] and in the Vulgate.

Sure, it is present in some of the texts of the TR, but in at least one of them the particular Greek text was formulated later, following the text of KJV.

Rob

 

Is 'better' a judgment by today's standards or 1611? I agree that some of these might be better; but many are not superior, just different. Let's take a closer look at some of the words cited (I did not nit-pick the entire list)...
________
Matt. 3:12 barn (Great) garner (Bishops’, KJV)

The Greek word here is apotheke (Strong's #596) which means a place in which anything is laid up, or a storehouse, a granary. I was not familiar with this word previously so I looked it up... it seems the definition of "garner" (online Am. Heritage Dict.) is to gather and store in, as if in a granary; also to amass, or acquire. My grandfather was a farmer and I know that a "barn" can be used to store feed, but it also can be shelter for livestock and/or farming implements. Typically, herds and tools do not reside in a corncrib or silo. These are different structures with different purposes. Perhaps these terms had completely different or almost similar meanings in 1611, but on the face of it, I'd say that "garner" may actually be the more accurate word.
________
Matt. 6:6 chamber (Geneva) closet (Bishops’, KJV)

The Greek word at this point is tameion (Strong's #5009) which Thayer's Lexicon says is a storage chamber (especially an inner chamber), storeroom, a secret room. The second definition in the American Heritage Dictionary of "closet" is specifically a small private chamber, as for study or prayer. Again, I don't think most of us really know the 1611 difference between the definitions of "chamber" and "closet", but "closet" seems like a very legitimate translation to me.
________
Matt. 14:11 maid (Geneva) damsel (Bishops’, KJV)
Mark 6:28 maiden (Tyndale’s) damsel (Bishops’, KJV)

Both above references compare the same word: the Greek word is korasion (#2877) meaning a girl, damsel, or maiden. Clearly, "damsel" is not inferior to "maid/maiden"!
________
Matt. 23:27 tombs (Tyndale’s, Geneva) sepulchres (Bishops’, KJV)

The handy online version of Houghton Mifflin Thesaurus lists "sepulchre" and "tomb" as a synonyms.
________
Matt. 20:11 master of the house (Geneva) good man of the house (Bishops, KJV)
Mark 5:21 near (Geneva) nigh (Bishops’, KJV)
Mark 11:11 evening (Geneva) eventide (Bishops’, KJV)

Most of us understand both pairs of words to be equivalent, and so (I think) would have 17th century readers. Any differences would be inconsequential.
________
Matt. 20:22 know (Geneva) wot (Bishops’, KJV)
Mark 9:6 knew (Geneva) wist (Bishops’, KJV)
Mark 14:40 knew (Geneva) wist (Bishops’, KJV)

I think that when the primary goal of the AV revisionists (eloquence of style) is taken into consideration, you may understand why they choose as they did. Note the consistency.
________
Mark 7:27 good (Geneva) meet (Bishops’, KJV)
Matt. 15:26 good (Tyndale’s, Geneva) meet (Bishops’, KJV)

Now this is a case where the AVists actually translated this Greek word kalos as "good" in the majority of its appearances (over 80 times), but only twice as "meet". The word has a very broad meaning of beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable, etc. We don't know why they chose "meet" right here; most likely stylistic considerations. The AV translators were fond of synonyms for the reader's variety (they also used "better" 7 times, "honest" 5 times, and some others).
________
Matt. 26:27 Drink ye every one of it (Geneva) Drink ye all of it (Bishops’, KJV)

This phrase can be understood in English two ways: 'you (plural) should drink the entire contents,' or 'each individual should drink from it'. For many years I thought it meant the former. However, the Greek clearly indicates that it means the later, and I get that sense a little more form the Geneva. For modern readers sentence structure and punctuation could also help immensely: 'Everyone, drink from it,' or 'Drink it, all of you.'

I do believe that the AV could have been more accurate in bringing over the Greek into English. However, I don't think that any of these references really prove that point.

 

These comments were followed by an impressive list of verses from Genesis. I think it is impossible to fairly compare these words without having access to a 17th century dictionary. Also, what is missed while reviewing in this format (mostly single words contrasted against single words) is that each translation applied the word that fit best for its particular literary style which is a legitimate criteria for chosing between available words.

I think that upon inspection the actual differences between many, if not most of the words of earlier English versions and the AV will be discovered to be nearly synonymous even now, but especially if put into a 1611 context. A couple of examples...
__________
Gen. 24:55 maid (Geneva) damsel (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 29:14 a month long (Coverdale’s) space of a month (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 37:14 valley (Coverdale’s) vale (Bishops’, KJV)

None of these are really simpler, clearer, more up-to-date, or more accurate.
__________
Gen. 46:27 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)
Gen. 50:3 seventy (Geneva) threescore and ten (Bishops’, KJV)

Two obvious examples of the AV literary style.
__________
Gen. 31:29 yesterday (Coverdale’s) yesternight (Bishops’, KJV)

This seems to be a simple case of translator's discretion: the word in Hebrew can mean either "yesterday" or "yesternight" (last night). Coverdale chose one option and the AV chose the alternate, and neither is wrong. It would take a lengthly study to detrmine if either was 'better' suited in the context of the passage.

Of the verses listed for Genesis in that post, I found none that were overwhelmingly 'better' in the pre-1611 English Bibles than the AV, 'better' being subjective.

 

Are you saying that you think that the KJV is not a gift from God or that all versions are?

A.F.

 

Some of these can be humorous...
_________
Ps. 4:2 lies (Geneva) leasing (Bishops’, KJV)
Ps. 5:6 lies (Geneva) leasing (Bishops’, KJV)

I wonder if Hertz knows that "leasing" is another term for "lies"?
_________
Ps. 18:34 brass (Geneva) steel (Bishops’, KJV)

Thayer's says that "brass" (or "copper") is right; of course, Strong's adds "steel" too!
_________
Ps. 81:3 Blow the trumpet (Geneva) Blow up the trumpet (Bishops’, KJV)

I hope that musician wasn't injured when his instrument exploded!
_________
S. of S. 2:12 turtledove (Coverdale’s) turtle (Bishops’, KJV)

Here's the whole verse (KJV): The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing [of birds] is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

There seems no excuse for this one: the Hebrew word means "dove" or "turtledove" in both Thayer's and Strong's. No mention of "turtle" anywhere. This not a printer's error either; the AV translates this word 5 times as "turtle" (see Levi. 12:8, 15:29, Num. 6:10, Jer. 8:7 clearly related to various birds for sacrifices) even though they translated it otherwise "turtledove" (9 times).

Logos1560 what is your source for these examples, please?

 

The original autographs were gifts from God - they were brought about by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Every manuscript copy, every translation, every Bible version since those times have been copied/translated by mere men. These, including the KJV, are mere copies/translations of God's perfect gift - nothing more, nothing less.

 

Franklinmonroe: //Is 'better' a judgment by today's standards or 1611? //

By 2006 standards.
If we are to use the KJV1769 instead of, say
the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/,
then we must judge by today's standards, not those
in 1611 or 1769 or whatever.

 

I would agree if the question had been 'Can the 1611 KJV be better?' then the AV would not fare well against today's standards. My question was meant rhetorically (I thought I detected some modern standards being applied). Sorry Ed, that is a different debate.

This topic is titled "Could the 1611 KJV have been better?" (past tense) and the OP questions whether more accurate renderings were available in the pre-1611 English Bibles, and how the rules set forth by the King affected the translation process at the time.

 

Awesome research, Logos1560!

In every one of the places where the KJV introduced a change or variation from the earlier English Bibles, especially the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles, was their change always an improvement? No, but 'improvement' can be very subjective.

Did the KJV translators always achieve their aim or endeavor of making a good translation better? No, it seems to be that, like the RV men that came after them, the AV revisors abandoned the king's directives (and set about to do what they were directed by the King of Kings to do.)

Do all their changes agree better with the original language texts? No, but that was not their primary focus.

 

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! (that is the sound of me biting my tongue....)

 

It baffles me that folks can read the scriptures and believe that God is active in their own personal lives yet not believe that God has any thing to do with the translation of the Scriptures.

I would guess that those here who are actively involved in translation pray daily for guidance in their work. Are such prayers in vain? Be real man.

A.F.

 

Now you're putting words in my mouth which I did not say, AF. I did not say that God had nothing to do with the translation of Scripture. And no, the prayers of the translators are not in vain.

But do you believe, AF, that only the KJV translators prayed and received God guidance? Didn't the translators of the MVs also pray to God and receive His guidance to help their efforts as well? I think that at least some of the translators of all the various English Bible versions have prayed for God's guidance and have received the guidance they prayed for. But, despite God's hand being on the translation efforts, those efforts were marred by the frailties and the shortcomings of the translators. Just like we have free will to follow God's will or not to follow God's will, the translators of the various Bible versions also had free will. I venture to say that there were Christians and non-Christians alike on all translation committees. And although God's Spirit was probably heard by those who were Christian, I don't think the non-Christians were listening to the Holy Spirit. Yet their combined efforts produced various English Bibles from early times until the present. The Holy Spirit can take the things of mortal men and turn them into something good and useful. Do you believe that God smiled down upon the KJV while ignoring other English Bible translations?

Yes, the 1611 KJV could have been better. But by the same token, the MVs could also have been better. There is not one of them, including the KJV, which have absolutely no mistakes.

 

Keith M, you said "These, including the KJV, are mere copies/translations of God's perfect gift - nothing more, nothing less."

I agree that having God's Word in the original is a Gift. However, if God did guide the work of the translator then I think I am correct to say that the translation is also a gift from God.

I think you are putting words in my mouth. I don't recall saying any thing in this thread against other translations. I did say that I think the KJV 1611 is a gift from God. As such (in my opinion) it is perfect. I continue to stand by that.

A.F.

 

Because, I don't view the MV's of less value or throw them out either. As the KJV grammar, syntax and vocabulary is used less and less by the "standard" 21st English speaker because of antiquity of the 17th century English language of the KJV, I turn to the modern versions. This was the suggestion of the KJV translators themselves as has been often quoted that a variety of English translations is a good thing to capture "the sense" of the Scriptures.

As He has done down through the ages, however if the TRANSLATION itself is so inerrant why then the hundreds of years of corrections to the text since God Himself is incapable of the smallest error?

This was one complaints of the Dissenters, AnaBaptists, Baptists, Puritans, etc leveled against what they called the "ecclesiastical" errors of the AV brought about by the King of England's influence and his remaining romish views on the Church of England's Bible (published with the heretical Apocrypha).

It would seem that you approve of the office of "deacon" deacon but (as a For instance) some of them objected to the use of the AV word "Bishop". Does your Baptist Church have the office of "Bishop"? The Word of God declares and approves of the office of "Bishop" as a good thing. Do you? Does your local Church?

1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.​

Others (immersionists) objected to the "mistranslation" of the following as an affirmation of baptismal sprinkling or pouring:​

KJV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:​

When in reality the preposition in the Koine text is "in" (Greek "en").​

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:​

Even the Church of Rome got that part correct (though they threw in the doctrine of penance) in the Rheims NT published in 1592:​

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.​

Probably because the Latin Vulgate slavishly followed the Greek text:​

Matthew 3:11 ego quidem vos baptizo in aqua in paenitentiam qui autem post me venturus est fortior me est cuius non sum dignus calciamenta portare ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu Sancto et igni​

If you don't believe me deacon then this Sunday ask your "Bishop".​

HankD​