Another one on NC .. the KJV

Ask the question you always wanted to ask, and were afraid to. There is no dumb question. Be courageous, for here you will find people ready to talk.<P>All Villagers may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby jay_p » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:26 pm

jay_p
Native Resident
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:52 am
Location: North Georgia

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby Jim » Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:59 am

jay_p wrote:I have.. Err crossed swords with wmartin before.

Bill Martin is very wary of discussions related to the authority of scripture. It's good to have this site where we can discuss issues making that assumption if we wish.
User avatar
Jim
Native Resident
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:36 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby jay_p » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:25 am

I would say more than wary. He, based off previous discussions, rejects Sola Scriptura and instead believes that the Holy Spirit will guide the heart and that where this prompting and scripture disagree the heart is to be more trusted.
I think though that is what got the thread locked. Was my assertion that, for the purposes of the thread, we treat the scripture as inerrant. Which to be honest made sense in the context of the thread itself. The argument over the authority / inerrancy of The Word is a different debate.
jay_p
Native Resident
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:52 am
Location: North Georgia

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby Petros » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:43 am

I personally prefer the KJV to other Englished bibles. Not because it has the best sources - we have more ancient copies now. Not because it has the best scholarship - hard to evaluate, but there are places. Nor because it is error free - made by humans who SAY they are going back to Hebrew and Greek and actually leave in some pieces that my friend Jerome popped into the Vulgate with no clear source.

But it is nearly unique being the product of a team of experienced scholars who were also serious Christians. Most other Englished versions are just quibbling with the KJV.

But it is no more inspired or inerrant than any other translation.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby RMOlson » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:44 am

I believe you were well reasoned and polite. The only thing I think could have been taken the wrong way, although I enjoyed it, would be the Babylon Bee article.
User avatar
RMOlson
Native Resident
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:58 am
Location: NW GA

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby jay_p » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:53 am

Yeah, I was trying to lighten the mood, but it was a bit of a pointed jab at the KJV people. I can see how it would be taken wrong.
They tend to wield their sarcasm heavily at times.
jay_p
Native Resident
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:52 am
Location: North Georgia

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby bn2bnude » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:02 am

Nearly every recent translation and, for that matter, paraphrase attempt at the Bible has some sort of "here is why and how we did this" page(s).

I think the history of something like a Bible translation is important. For instance, in the 1983 version of the New International Version, one of my pet peeves is the translators changing Junia's name in Romans 16:7 to Junius, female to male, to better fit their beliefs (at least that is the story I've heard). In the 2011 Today's New International Version and the 2012 New International Version, this was rectified.

That said, I ran across this rather interesting history of the genesis of the King James Version...

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1601-1700/story-behind-king-james-bible-11630052.html

The commissioning of the King James Bible took place in 1604 at the Hampton Court Conference outside of London. The first edition appeared in 1611. The King James version remains one of the greatest landmarks in the English tongue. It has decidedly affected our language and thought categories, and although produced in England for English churches, it played a unique role in the historical development of America. Even today, many consider the King James Bible the ultimate translation in English and will allow none other for use in church or personal devotions. However, the story behind the creation of this Bible translation is little known and reveals an amazing interplay of faith and politics, church and state. To understand what happened, we need to go back to the world of the early 17th century.

Try to imagine what it was like to live in the England of 1604. Theirs was not a world like ours where speed, change, and innovation are consciously cultivated and thoughtlessly celebrated. Their world moved at a much slower pace and continuity was prized over change. In their world, the crowning of a new monarch was a grand event that deeply affected the life and identity of the nation. The monarch would rule for life. There was no continuous cycle of election campaigns in their world as there is in ours.

The Puritans Miscalculate
Consider the mood that must have prevailed at the time of Queen Elizabeth's death. Her rule had provided a great sense of security and stability for her country.
The Puritans were eager to continue the work of the Reformation, and the death of Elizabeth seemed their opportune moment. Scotland's James VI succeeded her, thus becoming James I of England. Because James had been raised under Presbyterian influences, the Puritans had reason to expect that James would champion their cause. They were gravely mistaken.

James was acquainted with many of their kind in Scotland, and he did not like them. However, they were a sizeable minority, serious, well educated, highly motivated, and convinced of the righteousness of their convictions. Regardless of personal antipathy, James did not consider it politically wise to ignore them.
James wanted unity and stability in the church and state, but was well aware that the diversity of his constituents had to be considered. There were the Papists (as they were called then) who longed for the English church to return to the Roman fold. There were also the Puritans, loyal to the crown but wanting even more distance from Rome. They insisted that England's Reformation did not go far enough, because it still retained too many Catholic elements. They had no trouble agreeing with John Knox's description of Elizabeth as "neither good Protestant nor yet resolute papist."

The Presbyterians wanted to do away with the hierarchical structure of powerful bishops. They advanced what they believed was the New Testament model of church administration under elders or presbyters.

The Nonconformists and Separatists, some of whom would later become America's Pilgrims, wanted the state out of church affairs altogether. They were not seen as a potent force at the time, but their movement was slowly developing.

Then there was Parliament -- eager to expand its power beyond the role it had at the time. There was a significant Puritan influence and representation in the Parliament.

To keep our alliteration, let’s refer to the next group as the "Prayer Book" establishment or the Bishops and the hierarchy of the English church. They were a genuine elite, holding exceptional power, privilege, and wealth. To them, Puritan agitation was far more than an intellectual abstraction to be debated at Oxford and Cambridge. If the Puritans were to prevail, this hierarchy had much to lose.

James Comes to the Throne
As James prepared to take the throne, strong stirrings of discontent caused him grave concern. Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603, after ruling 45 years. James received word of his cousin Elizabeth's death and his appointment to the throne, and on April 5, he began his journey from Edinburgh to London for his coronation.
James' journey south was marked by an important interruption. A delegation of Puritans presented James a petition that outlined their grievances and the reforms they desired. The document was known as the Millenary Petition and had over 1,000 clergy signatures, representing about ten percent of England's clergy. This petition was the catalyst for the Hampton Court Conference. From the beginning the petition sought to allay suspicions regarding loyalty to the crown. It treated four areas: church service, church ministers, church livings and maintenance, and church discipline. It also set forth objections that perhaps sound rather frivolous to us today, but were serious matters to the Puritans. Among the things they objected to were the use of the wedding ring, the sign of the cross and the wearing of certain liturgical clothing. However, the Millenary Petition contains no mention at all of a new Bible translation.

James took the petition seriously enough to call for a conference. In a royal proclamation in October 1603, the king announced a meeting to take place at the Hampton Court Palace, a luxurious 1,000-room estate just outside of London, built by Cardinal Wolsey.

The Participants
The participants in the conference were the king, his Privy Council of advisors, nine bishops and deans. There were also four moderate representatives of the Puritan cause, the most prominent being Dr. John Reynolds, head of Corpus Christi College. It was clear the deck was stacked against the Puritans, but at least they were given a voice.

King James Sets the Tone
Like Constantine at the opening of the Council of Nicea, James delivered the opening address. He immediately set the tone and gave clear cues of what to expect. The doctrine and polity of the state church was not up for evaluation and reconsideration.

James immediately proceeded to hint that he found a great deal of security in the structure and hierarchy of the English church, in contrast to the Presbyterian model he witnessed in Scotland. He made no effort to hide his previous frustration in Scotland.

The Puritans were not allowed to attend the first day of the conference. On the second day, the four Puritans were allowed to join the meeting. John Reynolds took the lead on their behalf and raised the question of church government. However, any chance of his being heard was lost by one inopportune and, no doubt, unintended reference.

He asked if a more collegial approach to church administration might be in order. In other words, "Let's broaden the decision-making base." Reynolds posed his question this way: "Why shouldn't the bishops govern jointly with a presbyterie of their brethren, the pastors and ministers of the Church."
The word presbyterie was like waving a red flag before a bull. The king exploded in reply: "If you aim at a Scots Presbyterie, it agreeth as well with monarchy as God and the devil! Then Jack, and Tom, and Will, and Dick shall meet and censure me and my council." He then uttered what can be considered his defining motto and summary: "No bishop, no King!"

At this point, he warned Reynolds: "If this be all your party hath to say, I will make them conform themselves, or else I will harrie them out of the land, or else do worse!"

While Reynolds' unfortunate use of the term presbyterie damaged the Puritan case, he does get credit for proposing the most significant achievement of the conference. Reynolds "moved his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry VIII and King Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original." James warmed to a new translation because he despised the then popular Geneva Bible. He was bothered more by its sometimes borderline revolutionary marginal notes than by the actual quality of the translation.
Get to Work!

So James ordered a new translation. It was to be accurate and true to the originals. He appointed fifty of the nation's finest language scholars and approved rules for carefully checking the results.

James also wanted a popular translation. He insisted that the translation use old familiar terms and names and be readable in the idiom of the day.

It was made clear that James wanted no biased notes affixed to the translation, as in the Geneva Bible. Rule #6 stated: "No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words." Also, James was looking for a single translation that the whole nation could rely on "To be read in the whole Church," as he phrased it.

He decreed that special pains be "taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority...."

A Colossal Achievement
Consider how preposterous it was to have a team of elite scholars writing for a largely illiterate public. We can only stand back in amazement at their achievement. Think how ludicrous the translation mandate was. It called for a product commissioned to reinforce a clear-cut royal political agenda, to be done by elite scholarly committees, reviewed by a self-serving bureaucracy, with ultimate approval reserved to an absolutist monarch. The final product was intended primarily for public and popular consumption. It was to be read orally -- intended more to be heard in public than to be read in private.

How many works of literary genius do you recall that were done by committee? How many premier scholars are you aware of who can write for the ear? Not to mention for a context intended to evoke a spirit of worship!

How optimistic would you have been that a team of about 50 could handle the technical and linguistic challenges while at the same time producing a work with a cadence, rhythm, imagery, and structure that would resonate so deeply with popular consciousness that it shaped a civilization and culture in a unique way? However, history shows that they were successful in creating a translation that not only met the needs of their generation, but also succeeded in influencing the lives of generations to come.
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. (Rom 8:1 NLT)



If I speak with the tongues of men and angels but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)
User avatar
bn2bnude
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:09 am
Location: Denver

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby naturaldon » Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:21 pm

Thanks for the link, jay_p. I read the strip. You were fine and I appreciate your defense on behalf of Scripture inerrancy. It is indeed difficult to debate this with anyone who doesn't believe that the Word as we have it, and as carefully translated as is possible, is God's revelation of Himself to us, and I don't think He would leave it to the whims of someone who feels that the Holy Spirit still provides for further inspiration. There is a difference between inspiration of the Word and inspiration of the soul. The Holy Spirit inspires me all the time, but never to undermine that which we have as God's Holy, inerrant, inspired, immutable, eternal Word.

Wish I could have joined that discussion but at least we can discuss things like that here, naked or not.
-Don
He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30)
User avatar
naturaldon
Native Resident
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:03 am
Location: NW MO

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby naturist » Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:39 pm

I'm not really into the history of different versions, but the author of Nakedness and the Bible, Paul M. Bowman told me in e-mail exchanges that bible scholars tend to claim the NASB as being the most accurate version. His uncle was one of the primary Hebrew translators who was involved in the NASB translation. He also stated that some of the translations by so-called “fundamentalist” Protestants twist many meanings to conform with their own beliefs.

One comparison is John 13:4:

NIV - so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist.

NASB - got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself.

Two totally different takes on whether he was nude or partially clothed when he washed his disciples feet. Paul Bowman went on to say:
"When you think of it, “removing His outer garment” makes no sense because then why would He put a towel around Him? That would be like saying one took off his jacket and then put a towel around his street clothes!"
User avatar
naturist
Native Resident
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 1:36 am
Location: Washington

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby bn2bnude » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:24 am

naturist wrote:... but the author of Nakedness and the Bible, Paul M. Bowman told me in e-mail exchanges that Bible scholars tend to claim the NASB as being the most accurate version...


I've heard the same thing but "accuracy" is a tricky thing...

For instance:
  • What original manuscripts were used? Not all sources are equal. Thanks to the dead sea scrolls, there are earlier manuscripts than some translators use.
  • What style of translation is used? Word-for-word? Thought-for-thought? Paraphrase?


I used a NASB for years but found that it didn't read very easily. I grew up with the KJV and used the RSV after the NASB. Lately, I've been enjoying the NLT and The Voice (which isn't shown above but is a translation)
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. (Rom 8:1 NLT)



If I speak with the tongues of men and angels but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)
User avatar
bn2bnude
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:09 am
Location: Denver

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby Maverick » Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:49 pm

bn2bnude wrote:I used a NASB for years but found that it didn't read very easily. I grew up with the KJV and used the RSV after the NASB. Lately, I've been enjoying the NLT and The Voice (which isn't shown above but is a translation)


I have heard some people describe the NASB as "wooden." I bought one recently, and I hope to read through it completely in a year or two (my goal being to read a new/different Bible translation every year) to see if it is for myself. I honestly do like my ESV because it sits a bit to the right of the NASB on the line but was still translated with the "word-for-word" philosophy (key word there, philosophy). It is coherent and thorough, with plenty of footnotes to tie in OT quotes in the NT and identify content that's debated as "authentic" (such as John 7:53-8:11, the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery).

There is so much more to the Bible than simply the English words used to represent the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Knowledge of the original languages (even if general) and an understanding of the cultures the books were written in adds much more depth and meaning.

Traduttore, traitore.
In nuditate veritas.
User avatar
Maverick
Native Resident
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:14 am
Location: DFW, TX

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby Ramblinman » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:18 pm

I love the grandeur of the King James version of the Bible. I would not dream of parting with the copies I own.
For accuracy, I prefer more recent translations, provided they correct the minor flaws in the KJV translation and supplement with additional ancient manuscripts, to the extent they are reliable.

I do not regret my decision to leave NC. I was appalled at the censorship of the beliefs of evangelical Christians.
By definition, one cannot have dialog if those who disagree with the forum owner are not allowed to state their case in a polite and respectful manner.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby jay_p » Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:34 pm

I agree... It bugs me that evangelical /conservatives seem to be shut down.. And I have trouble with the assertion that "most" Christians now reject the Bible and exclusivity of Christ.
jay_p
Native Resident
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:52 am
Location: North Georgia

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby naturaldon » Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:42 pm

Funny how we quote the KJV in many of the verses we use for certain services: like Psalm 23 (I just did this the other day doing a funeral), the Lord's prayer, the Ten Commandments, etc. Well, funny ain't the right word but you know what I mean. I guess it's why I like the NKJV because I grew up with the KJV and many of the verses I memorized or otherwise know well are nearly word for word. But I do fall back on a NASB quite often, and use other versions at other times when I feel the need. Admittedly, I use something simpler (?) like the NLT or CSB (formerly HCSB) when teaching youngsters.
-Don
He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30)
User avatar
naturaldon
Native Resident
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:03 am
Location: NW MO

Re: Another one on NC .. the KJV

Postby Ramblinman » Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:41 am

Don,

I believe that most of the problem areas of the KJV are a case where the chosen translated word is not wrong, but simply that a better word could be used.
An acquaintance with the vocabulary of the early 1600's would clear up additional confusion for modern listeners.
Not much remains that could not be explained by a wise pastor or church elder while we continue to enjoy the beautiful turn of phrase in that version.
And some of the KJV is beautiful because of the work of Tyndale and other translators that preceded the KJV;
and of course must be attributed to the beauty of the mind of God that inspired the autographs, the words God whispered to the prophets and apostles.

In recent years, some ancient manuscripts have added clarity and we should not ignore them.
Not that any of these imperfections denied our ancestors a saving knowledge of Christ, but I believe that this additional insight in recent years is indeed a gift from God,
perhaps a partial explanation of the phrase "knowledge shall increase" that God revealed to the prophet Daniel concerning the last days.
Ramblinman
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron