Why I use the Authorised Version, Introduction
I wonder have you ever stood at the Bible section in the Christian bookshop and wondered which Bible to purchase? Should I get a New International Version, or an English Standard Version, or a Revised Version, or a Revised Standard Version, or and American Standard Version, or a New American Standard Version, or a New Century Version, or the New Living Translation, or The Message, or The Good News Bible, the New King James Version or will I be old fashioned and get the Authorised (King James) Version? Confusing isn’t it!
Then what about this scenario, you are sitting in a meeting, the speaker calls his text and you find the place. All is good so far but then he starts to read, you wonder have you turned up the wrong passage, perhaps it was 2nd Corinthians not 1st Corinthians, you have a frantic flick and browse up and down the page until you realise, he is using a different version. Confusing isn’t it!
‘God is not the author of confusion’ 1 Corinthians 14 v33
Bearing in mind that God is not the author of confusion I have come to the conclusion that Satan has got his fingers into the pie of Bible translation.
It is sad to think that there are many language groups around the world who are yet to see the scriptures in their own mother tongue whereas the English-speaking world has scores of translations to choose from. It looks like those with enough brains to do the job have no vision for those without the scriptures but have plenty of energy to work on more English translations.
Maybe it’s all about money, perhaps those poor tribes men up the Amazon don’t have enough buying power compared to the UK & USA. It is interesting to note that all of the New Bibles are copyrighted. If a Christian author wants to quote a significant number of words from a New Bible he must seek the publishers permission. Who do these people think they are? This is God’s book, He inspired every word in it and it should be made available to all without restriction.
If you have not already guessed I am not a fan of the new translations.
This year 2011 marks the 400th anniversary of the first publication of the King James (Authorised) Version of the Scriptures of 1611. Up until the late 19th Century the KJV was the common and standard version for the English-speaking world until it came under attack from Textual Criticism and the explosion of modern version. It is my intention over the next few weeks and maybe even months to use this ‘blogspot’ to communicate why I believe that we should stick with this old faithful translation and reject the modern alternatives. No doubt I will be accused of being a ‘fuddy duddy’. However, my opposition to the new translations is not because they are ‘new’, but because they are not as faithful to the original.
Above I have questioned the emphasis and the motives of the modern ‘bible industry’. As these ‘blogs’ develop I shall look at an even more serious issue, the issue of important Christian doctrine being undermined by the new translations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Maurice
ReplyDelete'It is interesting to note that all of the New Bibles are copyrighted. If a Christian author wants to quote a significant number of words from a New Bible he must seek the publishers permission. Who do these people think they are? This is God’s book, He inspired every word in it and it should be made available to all without restriction.'
The copyright for the AV is held by the Crown. Should we go back to the Geneva Bible?
Remember too, the AV was the 'modern version' of its day, imposed by the Crown on Puritans who used the Geneva Bible. Is that a reason for rejecting it?
Wolfsbane said:
ReplyDelete"Remember too, the AV was the 'modern version' of its day."
A complete straw-man argument, again.
The AV was indeed a modern version in it's day. So, what? The AV was (and remains) the most accurate in the English language to date. It is it's accuracy that makes it acceptable, not it's (then) "modernity".
Likewise, (as Wolfsbane is keen to ignore) it is not "modernity" that makes the "modern versions" (of today) so worthy of rejection ... it is the fact that they are nowhere near as accurate as the AV which was produced from accurate source texts (unlike the so-called "modern versions").
Stephen
ReplyDeleteThe KJV-Only folk often use the objection that the AV is the Bible used for centuries and so has credentials as THE word of God. No need of any replacement. But the same argument was used against the AV by supporters of the then existing versions. I agree the argument has no merit.
The big issue is, as you say, the reliability of the underlying texts. Your difficulty comes when you accuse the other texts of being corrupt, yet you fail to acknowledge the Byzantine Text is also wanting, as is the Vulgate, etc. That's why the AV committee used several copies and translations from which to compile their Greek text, which they then translated into English.
So your position must be that those versions and translations were guilty of adding and omitting to the word of God, and only the AV committee was able to restore the pure word of God. Or have I missed something?
Should we not be talking rather of better choices from the Greek texts, and better translations from it - rather than Only One Bible and the rest are Perversions?
Should we not be acknowledging that all text families are 'corrupt' to some extent? Only the extent can be honestly argued.
Even then, to call them morally corrupt rather than textually corrupt is a big jump. None of them replace any doctrine.
As to some 'weakening' the case for some doctrines, the AV can be accused of the same, using the same criteria. Which makes me think the 'doctrinal corruption' accusations are fallacious.
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteAt first, I thought you may have been sincere. But having seen your statement above, it is evident to me that you have simply ignored every point put to you in connection with the many comment threads in connection with posts re. this current discussion about "versions", etc.
I also see that you want to continue with your broken-record sort of repetitions, repeating points, as if to make a new point, that have already been addressed several times before.
So, that being the case, I will simply refer you back to the comments I have already made, addressing these points.
I also note that you continue to make completely untrue statements ... such as "none of [the modern versions] replace any doctrine". That is both a straw-man argument AND a lie! (Or else you have never read both the AV and modern versions - otherwise you simply cannot make that statement with any degree of truth.)
The only thing "fallacious" about all of this is your line of argument... and your constant use of the straw-man argument is at best an irritation, and at worst deceit!
As an example, you state:
"Should we not be talking rather of better choices from the Greek texts, and better translations from it - rather than Only One Bible and the rest are Perversions?"
The very fact that I have stated, clearly on numerous occasions in this current debate, that this is not, at least as far as I am concerned, about one Bible only, but is, rather, about the AV being more accurate than anything else in the English tongue to date, and until a more accurate version is furnished we have no call to be consulting less accurate (and very much corrupted) versions. The very fact that I have stated this so often, and yet you still accuse me otherwise is evidence that you are not being genuine.
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteHere AGAIN is what I have ACTUALLY stated in this discussion:
“This argument (at least as far as I am concerned), is not about "KJ onlyism"... (as I have now stated multiple times on a number of comment threads on this blog which, to be fair, perhaps you have not read). Rather, as far as I am concerned, it is about the AV being the most accurate in the English tongue to date... and until a more accurate version is furnished, then we have no call (and certainly no claim to orthodoxy) to be using a less accurate version.”
“The AV, far from having an aversion to the Word of God, is the best translation of the Word of God in the English language because it is based on the most accurate of texts.”
“The KJV NEVER used the lingo of the times or the street! Everyday 1611 English was vastly different from the language of the 1611 KJV. The KJV used what has correctly been described by linguistic scholars as "English at it's very best"”
“The KJV, you will notice from my comments here and on other threads associated with this blog, is that the KJV is the most accurate to date... and considering the criterion used to decide what is and what is not an accurate manuscript, etc., it doesn't look like we are going to get a more accurate version than the KJV any time soon!”
“I am encouraging people, just as folks for years encouraged me, to read the best and most accurate translation of GOD's Word in the English language (if they are English speakers, of course) when I encourage them to read the KJV.”
“We should strive for excellence in translation and aim to improve and change things for the better. THAT is exactly what the KJV did... as a recent BBC article even pointed out... the KJV didn't USE the 1611 English of the day or the street, it IMPROVED the language! That's what makes the KJV (amongst other reasons) stand out from the rest - it challenges and improves people's understanding of GOD (Theology), because it was accurately translated from ACCURATE SOURCES, whereas these so-called "modern versions" decay it and seek to change the Scriptures to suit the sinful appetites of men (as opposed to challenging them), and DEMONSTRABLY so given the history of these "modern versions" and their impact.”
And then, I also said:
“I will happily accept and read a version of the Scriptures in English other than the KJV if it is a more accurate translation than the KJV... but until such a version appears (and to date there isn't one, due to the current translation methodologies and philosophies and corrupted sources being used to furnish these "modern" versions), WHY ON EARTH would I waste my time reading (and/or promoting) something that is in any way less accurate, indeed, dangerously inaccurate?”
Yet you are STILL, after my having made my position so clear on numerous occasions, making statements such as:
“Should we not be talking rather of better choices from the Greek texts, and better translations from it - rather than Only One Bible”
This absolutely confirms to my own mind that you are not being sincere, at all!
Not surprising, then, that you would wish to support and peddle the idea that the so-called “modern” perversions of Scripture are more accurate (and therefore worthy of use) than the AV. They are, evidently, well suited to your way of thinking!
Stephen
ReplyDeleteI had said:
“Should we not be talking rather of better choices from the Greek texts, and better translations from it - rather than Only One Bible”
You reply:
'This absolutely confirms to my own mind that you are not being sincere, at all!' I put that down to your faulty comprehension, rather than insincerity or dishonesty.
'Not surprising, then, that you would wish to support and peddle the idea that the so-called “modern” perversions of Scripture are more accurate (and therefore worthy of use) than the AV.'
Did I say they were more accurate? I believe some are, but that was not my point. My point was to show that ALL versions, including the AV have their faults - so it is erroneous to call all the rest 'corrupt'. That attitude smacks of the the love of 'sacred tradition' more appropriate to the Pharisees and Rome.
You deny holding to 'Only One Bible' ideas, on the basis that you would accept a better version if it appeared. I accept your word. But that does not alter the fact you condemn all the rest for things the AV itself is guilty of.
By all means criticise them as less accurate and keep to your AV until a better arrives. But don't condemn them as 'corrupt' when the AV has its faults. Will it be 'corrupt' when your better version arrives? Has God been blessing a 'corrupt' Bible?
Get your head straight, brother, and spend your zeal for God on worthy causes.
You have no idea about the causes I am involved in and have been involved in or about my zeal for God! Who do you think you are?
ReplyDeleteTo bring that up betrays an inability on your part to deal intellectually with the topic at hand, even to your own satisfaction.
You are also lacking in any real depth of understanding of this issue, going by what you say!
You need to get your head straight and stop blindly defending corruption!
If something is corrupt it is corrupt... there is a difference between imperfection and deliberate, calibrated flaws!
God continues to bless the most accurate translation in the English tongue.
...and considering the criterion used by "modern" scholars to decide what is and what is not an accurate manuscript, etc., it doesn't look like we are going to get a more accurate version than the KJV!
ReplyDeleteWolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteOne thing you need to get straight in your own mind (and comprehension) is that the kind of imperfections you make mention of with regard to the AV are vastly different from those that are found in the "modern versions".
You seem to think that the translation methodologies and philosophies used were carbon copies... there were actually hugely different.
It is erroneous (perhaps disingenuous?) on your part to keep ignoring this as if it were not the case.
I'll get back to these at the weekend, DV.
ReplyDelete'One thing you need to get straight in your own mind (and comprehension) is that the kind of imperfections you make mention of with regard to the AV are vastly different from those that are found in the "modern versions".'
ReplyDeleteAs I understand from reading several AV-promoters, the main case they have against the modern versions is their use of a non-Byzantine text. They use 'corrupt texts' like the Alexandrian.
So I logically think they must believe the Byzantine text is THE text, and all variants from it are corruptions.
So I'm puzzled when the TR is held up as THE text, since it adds to and omits from the Byzantine text - the sin which the modern versions are accused of.
Are you suggesting the 'imperfections' in the TR/AV are mere spelling mistakes?
That is not the case: many words and even sentences are added or omitted.
'...and considering the criterion used by "modern" scholars to decide what is and what is not an accurate manuscript, etc., it doesn't look like we are going to get a more accurate version than the KJV!'
ReplyDeleteThe Greek Majority Text has already been produced, so it should only be a matter of time until a corresponding English version follows. Until then, the NKJV gives many of the Majority Text (Byzantine Text) variants from the TR in the footnotes. Very helpful.
You do accept the Byzantine text is the correct Greek text? Or have I missed something?
“'One thing you need to get straight in your own mind (and comprehension) is that the kind of imperfections you make mention of with regard to the AV are vastly different from those that are found in the "modern versions".'
ReplyDeleteAs I understand from reading several AV-promoters, the main case they have against the modern versions is their use of a non-Byzantine text. They use 'corrupt texts' like the Alexandrian. So I logically think they must believe the Byzantine text is THE text, and all variants from it are corruptions. So I'm puzzled when the TR is held up as THE text, since it adds to and omits from the Byzantine text - the sin which the modern versions are accused of. Are you suggesting the 'imperfections' in the TR/AV are mere spelling mistakes?”
The Byzantine texts are the most reliable, but are not the original autographs. This does not mean that every single source text has equal standing with the Byzantine, on that basis alone, neither does it mean that the Byzantine texts have equal standing with the original autographs.
You also essentially repeat this same assertion that you made on other comment threads, so I shall repeat my answer:
Again, as has been repeated to you over and over and over again, it is vitally important that, when discussing these matters honestly, we compare like with like. You simply cannot compare apples with oranges, so-to-speak. First of all, the AV does not have “hundreds of thousands” of erroneous anything! The AV translators, basing their work on the Byzantine and Masoretic texts, as well as consulting others for clarity of words such as using some words from the Latin Vulgate only where and when the English vocabulary had been exhausted and found wanting in terms of finding the exact word equivalent as that in the Hebrew and Greek. Indeed, as a recent BBC news article correctly pointed out, the AV changed the English language in many respects. Latin versions that came before it were certainly not perfect, but consulting them and using certain words when the English had otherwise been exhausted was not a wrong course of action where this was done accurately and faithfully in relation to the original text. This cannot, however, be used to excuse the translators of so-called “modern” versions who consulted other works and cherry picked from them at will, and changed words without first exhausting the vocabulary of the English language. Indeed, the translators of so-called “modern versions” PRIMARILY based their works on rejected and heavily corrupted source texts, unlike the AV translators who PRIMARILY used the Byzantine and Masoretic texts. Your argument here about the AV translators using the same tactics as the so-called “modern versions” is deceitful, to say the least! The AV translators produced a more accurate translation in the English language than anything that had come before it. If we are to accept any of the so-called “modern versions” then they must surpass the accuracy of the AV. THEY DO NOT! Indeed, as long as modern critical scholars continue to use corrupt source texts as their primary texts, and as long as the current trends in translation methodology and philosophy continue, then we are not going to get a more accurate version than the AV, certainly not any time soon. Until a more accurate version appears, then Christians have no call to be using or encouraging others to use anything that is in any way less accurate than the AV in the English tongue.
Since you repeat your argument, I shall repeat my reply:
ReplyDelete'The AV translators, basing their work on the Byzantine and Masoretic texts, as well as consulting others for clarity of words such as using some words from the Latin Vulgate only where and when the English vocabulary had been exhausted and found wanting in terms of finding the exact word equivalent as that in the Hebrew and Greek. '
I've just shown you where the AV used a whole sentence not in the Byzantine text. You then defended them doing so by appealing to those non-Byzantine texts. Not a matter of finding an exact word equivalent, Stephen, but of importing whole sentences.
...
'The AV translators produced a more accurate translation in the English language than anything that had come before it.'
We are agreed on that.
...
'If we are to accept any of the so-called “modern versions” then they must surpass the accuracy of the AV.'
Correct, if by 'accept' you mean replace the AV with them. But we can accept them in the sense we still regard previous translations as the word of God, even though they were less accurate.
...
'THEY DO NOT!'
The NKJV is comparable in accuracy to the AV, and has the advantage of providing textual notes to the even more accurate Majority Text. It is also in the common tongue, as were the Greek originals.
...
'Indeed, as long as modern critical scholars continue to use corrupt source texts as their primary texts,'
Indeed, to be deplored. But so too is the AV when it uses corrupt source texts when it thinks fit. Why do you condemn one but justify the other?
...
'and as long as the current trends in translation methodology and philosophy continue, then we are not going to get a more accurate version than the AV, certainly not any time soon.'
Not all current trends are the same: the Majority Text folk are working on a formal equivalence Majority text version. I have in my possession their Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, and it provides not only the Greek but also a literal English translation. All we await is the full translation.
...
'Until a more accurate version appears, then Christians have no call to be using or encouraging others to use anything that is in any way less accurate than the AV in the English tongue.'
That's why I recommend the NKJV. It points out where the AV errs in choosing corrupt texts, and it is in the common tongue.
"That's why I recommend the NKJV"
ReplyDeleteI refer you to the comment thread of a newer post as regards this ... recommending the NKJV is not a good idea.