Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

The KJV was archaic in 1611 an even more obscure-sounding now. With respect to the New Testament, the dignified tone that you sense is because the language is so far removed from our own today. Many think that the more old-fashioned somthing sounds in the KJV = the more reverent. The more distant it sounds = the more dignified. But all this talk of the majestic and lofty tones of the 1611 shows how far removed the form of the language is from the way it was originally written. It was communicated in the manner of the common person -- not for an Oxford don.

I have encountered some who think that the NIV sounds too liturgical for their taste. That's why updates are necessary as well as completely new translations.

 

Let me rephrase your question a bit more clearly: Wasn't there a lot of negative publicity against the TNIV a few years ago?

Indeed there was. World magazine was a major culprit with its hit job on Today's New International Version.They called it "The Stealth Version". It was claimed that it neutered God and was about to bring in a feminist agenda. All of which was a crock.

James Dobson and Wayne Grudem jumped on the bandwagon as well as John Piper and others not as vocal as the former men in denouncing it.

Boycotting was in high gear then and persists for the most part today. In short a lot of sinning was done in God's Name.

 

Thanks. I have never read the TNIV so I was wondering what is it that you particularly like about it?

 

I think it is the best general-purpose English translation around. It covers the bases. It has elements of the NLTse at times as well as aspects of the NASBU.It's a mediating version -- but leans slightly more toward the formal-equivalent side.

There was only a 7% change in the NIV New Testament -- but it's all for the better.

I don't have the stats for changes in the Old Testament, but I think it is a lot more than just 7%.

More refinement needs to be made. I made several hundred suggestions to the New Testament text (as a layman).

I have made scads of threads regarding the TNIV since 2006. Check them out.

 

To be fair, a lot of the criticisms at the time against the TNIV (and I just threw away one whole theological journal critiquing it) centered around the duplicity with which Zondervan used in producing the TNIV. They came out with a statement saying they were going to produce it, they heard the backlash, then they said they would not do it. Poof...less than a couple of years later, out comes the TNIV. It was obvious that the TNIV was underway even while Zondervan said it was not.

I'm not anti TNIV. Just throwing this in for fairness.

 

I can't recall any book on hermeneutics that argues this. I'm not a "literal version only" type, but it is a universally accepted truism that more literal versions are preferred for word studies.

DE can lead to greater accuracy, but it doesn't always do so, just as literal does not by virtue lend itself to greater accuracy. Regardless of the methodology, it's what you do with it that counts.

The NASB in particular is the most word-for-word out there. No myth. It would be more accurate to say that the NASB/KJV is not always word-for-word, just as the NIV/TNIV/NLT are not always DE but employ word-for-word at times.

I've had this discussion with folks at Zondervan before. They have a tightrope to walk. The TNIV has certainly not been abandoned. However, they use what GM used - market saturation. You can find the NIV and TNIV in almost any form you want. The NIV is still way too popular to abandon. I see quite a bit of ads for the TNIV around. I just don't subscribe to your assertion.

Okay, friend, now I know you're pulling our leg. The NLT definitely has good support. With the exception of the ESV study Bible, however, the ESV has received very poor marketing. I've had even more discussions about this with folks from Crossway and sat in on some meetings where vocal frustration has been aired and explained regarding the poor support Crossway has given the ESV. The flap over bindings, the "which way do we go, George" mentality in the marketing dept there, the revision fiascos....let's just say that there are those on the translation committee and advisory board who are furious with Crossway, not to mention that received by others who are supporters. At one meeting, someone asked why the ESV marketing was outsourced to Kirkbride :laugh:

 

It was my understanding at the time that Zondervan only had the right to publish the NIV but not did own the copyright for the NIV. As far as I know, the NIV copyright was and still is held by the International Bible Society. Therefore, Zondervan had no right to promise that the NIV would not be updated.

 

I did not really switch from the KJV to another version - I just started using other modern English versions along with the KJV.

 

I'm not fibbing. You acknowledged the support that the NLT is receiving. If the ESV is not receiving as much from its parent -- it's still a long way off from the orphaned TNIV. Just look at the ESV Bible Blog which is updated regularly for years now. There's also the ESV Study Bible Blog which gets a lot of attention. What does the TNIV have? No blog -- just an impersonal info site which is quite antiquated. Yes, there is the independent TNIV Truth Blog unrelated to Zondervan or IBS which hasn't been active for six months. See for yourself.

 

The KJV is quite literal with Old English vocabulary. The KJV does use paraphrase and DE often as does any translation when its needed. Sometimes the original language word order and Subject-Verb-Object placement makes for bad English and needs to be rearranged to make sense. Also there are ancient phrasings where the KJV uses 17th century equivalents.

Such as in places where the KJV renders "God save the King" which is a popular phrase of the day, the literal is "may the King live". And in the Epistles Paul literally says "May it never be" or "May it not be" the KJV uses "God forbid" which was also a popular phrase of the day.

I really suggest a good print of any translation that has detailed notes. The NASB is the most literal of all modern translations, but uses partial DE but also notes the literal rendering when DE is actually used. I don't think I have came across a whole verse that is in DE, just a phrase within a verse. But that doesn't mean its not there somewhere.

The NLTse is more literal that the previous version. I like it as a good reading Bible.

 

I am not sure where this notion that the King James Bible is Old English comes from, but nothing could be further from the truth. The King James Bible is squarely Modern English.

Old English as a language ceased to be spoken and written during the reign of William I, who ruled from AD 1066 until his death in 1087. During the Norman period and well into the Plantagenet era, French was the official written and spoken language of England. By about 1300 English had made a comeback, by was so altered by over 200 years of French influence that it bore little in common with the English of the Anglo-Saxon prior to 1066. This form of English continued in use until the 1400s when it was replaced by the modern form of English we use today. By 1500 Modern English was in common use as the spoken and written language of England.

When the King James Bible was translated in 1604-1610 and published in 1611, Modern English had been in everyday use for well over 100 years. The King James Bible is completely translated in Modern English.

It should also be noted that the early Modern English of the late 1500s to mid 1600s is commonly considered superior to the form of Modern English we use today not only in terms of style, but it was also technically superior in that thoughts and concepts could be expressed with greater precision than is possible with the English of today.

I hope that helps to clear up the myth that I have seen repeated several times on this forum that the King James Bible is translated in Old English.

 

have seen a 1611 version and found it quite different. I was always taught to not use vulgar language such as is found in 2Kings 18:27 and Is 36:12 .

So conversation in Eph. 2:3, and 4:22 is used in the way as today?

Compared to the Greek text that is not even remotely true. What you wrote is partly true in that most of the time a language gets more ambiguous. The part you left out that is a problem, is the fact that words change meaning over time.

 

It may seem quite different to you, but that does not negate the fact that it is 100% Modern English.

"Conversation" as used in the King James Bible is better understood as "manner of living" or "lifestyle." Words do change meaning over time, often over a very short period of time. A good example of this would be saying "he is cool" in the 1950s vs. in the 1960s. Words can also mean different things in different areas. None of this changes the fact the the King James Bible is written in Modern English.

What does the Greek text have to do with the debasement of English over the last 400 years?

 

You would call profanity modern English?

1611 to 2009 is a short time?

The Greek text is much more specific than the English text of the KJV.

 

The fact that you are offended by a word does not make it Old English.

I wrote: "Words do change meaning over time, often over a very short period of time. A good example of this would be saying "he is cool" in the 1950s vs. in the 1960s." Don't try to take what I said out of context.

However, I would say that in the history of Christianity a mere 398 years is a short period of time. To be specific, 1611 to 2009 is just 20% of the whole history of the Christian faith.

There are about 14,298 different words used in the original Bible and 12,143 different words used in the King James Bible.

However, the Koine Greek of the 1st Century AD was a far less expressive form of Greek than the Classical Attic Greek that was in use until the late 400s BC. A lot of the nuance was lost by the 1st Century. Koine Greek may be somewhat more specific than the early 17th Century English used in the King James Bible, but I do not believe if is "much more specific."

I am still at a loss as to what any of this has to do with the decline in English from 1611 until now. It is a fact that the English used in the King James Bible is more expressive than the English of today. The Greek text has no bearing on how expressive English was then vs. now.

 

I can't believe that I sould have to argue that the King James Bible is NOT written in Old English.

"Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum,
Si þin nama gehalgod.
To becume þin rice,
gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg,
and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.
And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele."

The above is the Lord's Prayer in Old English.

 

Here is the Lord's Prayer in Middle English:

Oure fadir that art in heuenes,
halewid be thi name;
thi kyngdoom come to;
be thi wille don, in erthe as in heuene.
Yyue to vs this dai oure breed ouer othir substaunce,
and foryyue to vs oure dettis, as we foryyuen to oure dettouris;
and lede vs not in to temptacioun, but delyuere vs fro yuel.

 

That is not my point. My point is that it is profane, vulgar and offensive to the typical reader today.

English is far more ambiguous than Greek. You do not have problems with you. Think of how many words are translated love. Think of the time when Jesus asked Peter if he loved him. The Greek text uses more than one word which in English is translated by one word--love. The English text seldom differentiates between a first and third class conditional sentence.

English is dependent on word order and is far less specific than Greek.

 

GB, With all due respect, my inital post on this subject was intended to correct the error that the King James Bible is written in Old English. I stated the following objective facts in my post:

-The King James is written in Modern English.

-The English of 1611 was more precise than the English of today.

Both of these points are facts. I was not intending to argue KJVOism, modern Bible versions, manuscripts, Koine Greek or anything else.

You can say that the King James is archaic English if you believe that, but it is not Old English.

 

How objective are your "objective facts"?

The 1611 was not written in modern English. The alphabet differed from our present, modern one. It was written in old Elizabethan English.

That is your opinion; not an objective fact. Please specify why you believe that to be so.

I'll say most emphatically that it uses archaic English.