Example of the dumbing down of Christians by the devil
On the PuritanBoard, a place where you can never cease to find every manner of establishment church comedy (and tragedy) one of the anti-traditional text, anti-KJV scholars made this statement:
In Acts we read of Paul fetching a compass around an island (Malta I think)..but the campus [sic] had not yet been invented.
Here is the verse in the KJV:
Acts 28:13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:
This person actually thinks 'compass' in that verse refers to a thing with a magnetized needle and so on. (For the record: Fetched A Compass - Made a circuit; wandered up and down. Or just the word 'compass' alone: To make a circuit of; circle:)
This is basically what God's elect are up against on the manuscripts issue. The devil and his clerics have so successfully dumbed down Christendom on this subject that you find a person writing something like the above, and doing it in full confidence that he is 'schooling' the 'dumb KJVers.'
4 Comments:
Here are some examples of the misleading or obscure readings in the KJV:
1. Genesis 2:4: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth.” The Hebrew term for “generations” is an important one in Genesis and occurs ten times to mark new sections (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1; 37:2). (It is repeated in Gen. 36:9 for emphasis.) A preferable translation would be: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth” (NIV).
2. Genesis 4:1: “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” NIV: “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.”
3. Genesis 20:6: “therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.” NIV: “that is why I did not let you touch her.”
4. Genesis 21:31: “Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.” What did they “sware”? “Both of them”? No. Rather: “So that place was called Beersheba, because the two men swore an oath there” (NIV).
5. Genesis 26:8: “saw, and behold, Isaac was sporting with his wife.” NIV: “saw Isaac caressing his wife.”
6. Genesis 26:10: “one of the people might have lightly lien with thy wife.” NIV: “one of the men might well have slept with your wife.”
7. Genesis 26:31: “And they rose up betimes in the morning.” NIV: “Early the next morning.”
8. Genesis 29:29–30. To whom does the “he” refer in verse 30 of the KJV: “29and Laban gave to Rachel, his daughter, Bilhah, his handmaid, to be her maid. 30And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.” Who is the antecedent of “he”? Laban, of course. But that is wrong. The Hebrew meant Jacob; so the NIV substituted “Jacob” for “he.” There are other confusions in this simple historical text. Who is the daughter—Bilhah or Rachel? Read the KJV again. Now the NIV: “29Laban gave his servant girl Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maidservant. 30Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.” The NIV makes confusing pronouns clear by substituting the proper noun when necessary.
9. Genesis 30:27–29 is another case of confusion in the KJV: “27And Laban said unto him.… 28And he said.… 29And he said unto him.…” Who are those “he’s”? The most natural explanation would be Laban. But no. The NIV reads, “27But Laban said to him.… 28He added.… 29Jacob said to him.…” By using the word “added” and substituting “Jacob” for “he” in verse 29, the KJV confusion is cleared up immediately.
10. Leviticus 13:47 (and other places in Lev. 13 and 14): “The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in.” A piece of cloth cannot have leprosy. So the KJV—and even some modern translations (rsv, “leprous disease”;nasb, “a mark of leprosy”)—is misleading. It is better to translate, “If any clothing is contaminated with mildew” (NIV).
11. Joshua 12:4. “The coast of Og” (KJV) has nothing to do with water. It is “the territory of Og” (NIV).
12. 2 Chronicles 2:2: “told.” NIV: “conscripted.”
13. 2 Chronicles 2:7: “brass.” Brass was not known in Solomon’s days; hence the NIV’s “bronze.”
14. 2 Chronicles 2:7: “cunning to work in gold.” NIV: “skilled to work in gold.”
15. 2 Chronicles 2:7: “a man … that can skill to grave with the cunning men that are with me in Judah and in Jerusalem.” NIV: “a man … experienced in the art of engraving, to work in Judah and Jerusalem with my skilled craftsmen.”
16. Nehemiah 1:5: “the great and terrible God.” In 1611 the word “terrible” meant “awesome.” Today it usually means “bad, wretched, full of terror,” and therefore in contemporary English “terrible” can be misleading. It should read: “the great and awesome God” (NIV).
17. Job 20:3: “I have heard the check of my reproach.” NIV: “I hear a rebuke that dishonors me.”
18. Job 22:10–11: “Therefore snares are round about thee, and sudden fear troubleth thee; or darkness, that thou canst not see; and abundance of waters cover thee.” The last half of this sentence has no clear meaning. Words just hang there between semicolons and a period. Compare the clarity of the NIV: That is why snares are all around you, why sudden peril terrifies you, why it is so dark you cannot see, and why a flood of water covers you. Not only is the language of the NIV clear, but also the format and poetry are beautiful:
19. Job 36:33: “The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapor.” NIV: “His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach.”
20. Psalm 67:3, 5: “people” (four times). The Hebrew is not talking about separate individuals but groups of people, nations. Hence the NIV’s “peoples.” The difference is only an “s,” but what a difference in meaning!
21. Psalm 119:147: “I prevented the dawning of the morning.” NIV: “I rise before dawn.”
22. Psalm 139:13: “thou hast possessed my reins.” NIV: “For you created my inmost being.”
23. Isaiah 10:28: “carriages.” NIV: “supplies.”
24. Jeremiah 48:12: “I will send unto him wanderers, that shall cause him to wander.” NIV: “I will send men who pour from jars, and they will pour her out.”
25. Ezekiel 21:24: “discovered.” NIV: “revealing.”
26. Ezekiel 24:17: “tire.” NIV: “turban.”
27. Amos 5:7: “Ye who turn judgment to wormwood and leave off righteousness in the earth.” Frank Gaebelein thinks that one reason Evangelicals have been slow in getting involved in a truly biblical social action is that they have never understood the KJV in the many places where it has used “judgment” instead of “justice.” What is meant here in Amos 5:7 is not the juridical process of making a decision, but justice, as the NIV makes clear: You who turn justice into bitterness
and cast righteousness to the ground.
This misleading KJV translation is found in many other places, such as Hosea 2:19; 12:6; Amos 5:15; 6:12; Micah 3:1, 8—9; Habakkuk 1:4; Zephaniah 3:5; Zechariah 7:9; Malachi 2:17.
Think of how the KJV has held back the true meaning of God’s will when in the key verse of Amos (5:24) it says, “But let judgment run down as waters.” It should have said, “But let justice roll on like a river” (NIV). There is a great difference between judgment and justice!
28. Nahum 1:1: “The burden of Nineveh.” NIV: “An oracle concerning Nineveh.”
29. Matthew 11:25: “At that time Jesus answered and said.” Jesus was not answering anybody here or in many other similar instances. Hence the NIV: “Jesus said.” The KJV rendering creates an erroneous impression.
30. Matthew 17:25: “Jesus prevented him”—an Old English way of saying “Jesus was the first to speak” (NIV).
31. Matthew 20:31: “And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace.” The “because” makes no sense. NIV: “The crowd rebuked them and told them to be quiet.”
32. Matthew 23:24: “strain at a gnat.” What is meant is this: “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (NIV).
33. Matthew 26:27: “Drink ye all of it.” This could be taken to mean that not a drop should be left. But that would be incorrect. NIV: “Drink from it, all of you.”
34. Mark 2:3: “sick of the palsy.” NIV: “paralytic.”
35. Mark 4:38: “Master.” Forty-six times the KJV uses the term “master” when for today’s reader it should use the term “teacher.”
36. Mark 6:20: In the KJV Herod “observed” John. It should be “protected” (NIV).
37. Mark 6:25: “by and by.” The Greek really means the opposite: “right now” (NIV).
38. Luke 1:36. Luke does not say that Elizabeth was a “cousin” of Mary, as the KJV has it, but a “relative” (NIV).
39. Luke 1:40. Mary did not “salute” (KJV) Elizabeth, but “greeted” (NIV) her.
40. Luke 1:63. Zechariah did not ask for a “writing table” (KJV) but for a “writing tablet” (NIV).
41. Luke 23:15. In the KJV Pilate says of Jesus: “and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.” What the Greek says is the exact opposite. Thus the NIV: “as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death.”
42. Acts 21:15: “we took up our carriages.” NIV: “we got ready.”
43. Acts 27:21: “Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss.” NIV: “Men, you should have taken my advice not to sail from Crete; then you would have spared yourselves this damage and loss.”
44. Acts 28:13: “And from thence we fetched a compass.” A clearer translation: “From there we set sail” (NIV).
45. Romans 1:17: “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed.” How many Christians have failed to understand the great comfort of this verse because of the KJV’s reading? Paul was not talking about God’s righteousness, that is, his holy, righteous character, but a “righteousness” that is provided by him through the life and death of Jesus Christ. This crucial passage should be translated: “For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed” (NIV).
46. Romans 1:28: “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” There are two problems here: (1) Paul was not speaking of the reprobate but of the “depraved” and (2) Paul was not speaking of convenience at all. Instead the verse would well be translated “he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done” (NIV).
47. Romans 3:22: “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.” This is misleading on two counts: (1) It is the righteousness that is from God, not his righteousness; (2) it is faith in Christ, not “faith of Christ.” It should read: “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ” (NIV).
48. Romans 5:5: “the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” In 1611 “which” could be used of a person, but it is not normally so used today. In current English we say, “the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.”
49. Romans 14:23: “And he that doubteth is damned.” That would ordinarily be understood to mean that the doubter goes to hell forever. Not so the Greek! It should be “But the man who has doubts is condemned” (NIV).
50. 1 Corinthians 4:4: “For I know nothing by myself.” NIV: “My conscience is clear.”
51. 1 Corinthians 5:3–5. One problem of the KJV is that its sentences ramble on and on and are too complicated to figure out. The important passage, 1 Corinthians 5:3–5, is a case in point: 3For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.What does “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” go with? And who delivers such a one unto Satan? Paul? the Corinthians? Who? It is not enough to get the general thrust of these verses. We should know precisely what God has said. One way is to shorten the sentences as the NIV does:3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
52. 1 Corinthians 10:24: “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.” The KJV could be understood as recommending coveting and perhaps stealing! A better translation would be: “Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others” (NIV).
53. 1 Corinthians 13. The KJV “charity” does not mean philanthropy or almsgiving but “love”(NIV).
54. 1 Corinthians 16:22. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” Who or what is “Anathema Maranatha”? Someone forgot to put a period after “Anathema,” and to this day KJV Bibles have this error. Listen to the accuracy and clarity of the NIV: “If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse on him. Come, O Lord!” After “Lord” there is a note: “In Aramaic the expression Come, O Lord is Marana tha.”
55. 2 Corinthians 2:17: “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God.” NIV: “Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit.”
56. 2 Corinthians 4:2: “dishonesty.” NIV: “shameful ways.”
57. 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” It was Jesus who knew no sin, not “us.” It should be “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (NIV).
58. Ephesians 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father.” The word “bless” is used in the KJV to mean (1) praise, (2) thanks, (3) to invoke God’s favor, (4) happy. This is very confusing in today’s English. In Ephesians, for example, what is meant by “Blessed be the God and Father”? In 1 Corinthians 10:16, what is meant by “blessing” when the KJV says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?”?
The NIV attempted to be very careful so that there would not be confusion in this term that is traditionally and indiscriminately translated “bless.” For the NIV “bless” means that someone in a higher position, such as God or a king, favors someone lower (cf. Heb. 7:6–7). Hence in Psalm 67:7 the NIV reads “God will bless us” and in Genesis 28:6 Isaac “blessed” his son Jacob. But in Ephesians 1:3 Paul “praises” (NIV) God the Father. (When we want to praise a president for his actions, we don’t say, “I bless the president.”) And in 1 Corinthians 10:16 Paul said (in theNIV), “Is not the cup of thanksgiving [not blessing] for which we give thanks [not bless] a participation in the blood of Christ?” The indiscriminate use of “bless” and “blessed” in the KJV is confusing in today’s English.
59. Ephesians 4:4: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.” Here is an important verse; yet the statement “ye are called in one hope of your calling” is confusing. Here is what it means: “just as you were called to one hope when you were called” (NIV).
60. Philippians 3:20: “conversation.” NIV: “citizenship.”
61. Philippians 4:14: “Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction.” NIV: “Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles.” It is obvious that the last part of the KJV sentence does not communicate (“ye did communicate with my affliction”), but it is also instructive to look at the first part to see how an unnatural word order causes the reader to stumble. It is not natural to say, “ye have well done.” Nobody would talk like that today. Not only is the “ye” unnatural, but also the “have well done.” This sort of unnaturalness can be multiplied many times over, and it causes untold difficulties in the understanding and memorization of God’s Word.
62. 1 Thessalonians 1:4: “your election of God.” In the days of the KJV this was a way of saying “your election by God.” As it is today, the KJV suggests the opposite of what the Greek really says. NIV has “he has chosen you.”
63. 1 Thessalonians 1:6: “joy of the Holy Spirit.” Paul was not talking about the joy of the Holy Spirit but the joy of the Thessalonians. What the KJV tried to convey was “the joy given by the Holy Spirit” (NIV). One of the great causes of obscurity is the KJV’s love for the preposition “of,” as was also seen in Romans 1:17 (“the righteousness of God”), Romans 3:22 (“faith of Jesus Christ”), and 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (“your election of God”). In Greek it represents the genitive case, which has various usages that should be made specific in translation.
64. 1 Thessalonians 2:3: “uncleanness.” NIV: “impure motives.”
65. 1 Thessalonians 4:15: “prevent.” NIV: “precede.”
66. 1 Thessalonians 5:14: “feebleminded.” The Greek, however, has nothing to do with being mentally deficient. Rather it means being “timid” (NIV).
67. 1 Thessalonians 5:22: “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” This involves a misunderstanding of the Greek idiom. Rather, “Avoid every kind of evil” (NIV).
68. 2 Thessalonians 2:7: “he who now letteth.” Today “let” means “allow, permit,” but in 1611 one of its meanings was ”to hinder, obstruct, prevent” (still preserved in the legal phrase ”without let or hindrance”—and we still use “let” in the KJV sense of “holding back” when in tennis we speak of a “let” ball, i.e., a ball that hits the net is invalid and must be served again). The NIV conveys the sense with “the one who now holds it back.”
69. 1 Timothy 5:4. The KJV’s “nephews” is wrong. As we now know, the Greek word refers to “grandchildren.”
70. 1 Timothy 6:5: “supposing that gain is godliness.” This is entirely misleading. It should be: “who think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (NIV).
71. 2 Timothy 1:15: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.” Apart from the now faulty grammar (”all they … be turned away”), it should be noted that “Asia” does not mean Japan, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. In Paul’s day what was meant was a small “province of Asia” (NIV). The unmodified word “Asia” is misleading.
72. 2 Timothy 3:6: “silly women.” NIV: “weak-willed women.”
73. 2 Timothy 3:13: “seducers.” NIV: “impostors.”
74. Titus 1:6. The KJV’s “having faithful children” is wrong. “Faithful” means having children who are loyal, reliable, and worthy of trust. But what the Greek means is “a man whose children believe” (NIV).
75. Titus 2:13. The KJV wrongly distinguishes between God and Jesus (“the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”), whereas it should have called Jesus “God” (“our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,”NIV).
76. Hebrews 7:18: “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” How can the Christian understand what the Holy Spirit said here? And who would want to memorize that? But listen to this accurate and clear rendering: “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless” (NIV).
77. Hebrews 8:2: “a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched.” The KJV misleads the reader to think that there is a sanctuary plus a true tabernacle. But this is wrong. “Tabernacle” is in apposition to “sanctuary.” Thus it should read: “who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord” (NIV).
78. Hebrews 8:5: “who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” What does that mean? More understandable is this: “They served at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven” (NIV).
79. Hebrews 8:12: “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness.” This seems to say that God is going to be good to unrighteousness. But the meaning is “For I will forgive their wickedness” (NIV).
80. Hebrews 8:13: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” What is the writer saying? Where does the quotation end—after “covenant” or “old” or “away”? And what does “waxeth” mean? Why should anyone who loves God’s Word be kept in suspense? Why should he have to struggle to learn? Shouldn’t the Bible be just as clear today as it was when it was given? What Hebrews 8:13 means is this: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” (NIV).
81. Hebrews 9:1: “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” Does “divine service” mean “God’s work”? No. And what is a “worldly sanctuary”? NIV: “Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary.”
82. Hebrews 9:2–6. There is complete confusion in the KJV about what is the tabernacle, “the first,” “the sanctuary,” and the “Holiest.”
83. Hebrews 9:10: “which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” NIV: “They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.” Hebrews is a very important book with great truths about the relationship of the Old Testament sacrifices to Christ and the New Testament. It is imperative that Christians know what the Holy Spirit is saying to them.
84. James 5:11: “patience of Job.” But Job was not patient. He was impatient; yet he persevered. Hence a better translation is “Job’s perseverance” (NIV).
85. 1 Peter 2:9: “a peculiar people.” Today that means “odd people.” It should be “a people belonging to God” (NIV).
86. 1 Peter 2:12. The KJV translates the Greek as “Having your conversation honest” (using “conversation” in the now-rare Latin sense of “behavior”). But the Greek says nothing at all about conversation or honesty (“honest” meant “virtuous” or “good” in 1611, but the meaning is now archaic). What it does say is “Live such good lives” (NIV).
87. 1 Peter 4:3. The KJV condemns “banquetings” as being very evil. Today, of course, “banqueting” is not sinful. Actually what the KJV condemns is “carousings” (NIV), for that is what “banqueting” meant in 1611.
88. 2 Peter 1:1: “the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” NIV: “the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The KJV translators certainly believed that Jesus was God, but, as we have already seen, in several important cases they obscured the New Testament witness to that truth.
89. 2 Peter 3:4: “Where is the promise of his coming?” How odd that even some modern versions persist in this error (rsv, nasb, neb)! The scoffers knew where the promise was—in the Bible and in the preaching of the apostles. They were not asking where the promise was. It was exactly because they knew where the promise was that they really asked, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised?” (NIV).
90. Jude 7: “giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.” There are two problems here: (l) since “fornication” is ambiguous, the KJV is misleading; (2) what is “strange flesh”? NIV: “gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” The reader of the NIV realizes that Jude is condemning all illegitimate sex.
91. Jude 19: “These are they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.” NIV: “These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.”
This list of obscure or almost unintelligible KJV renderings could go on and on. Just to drive the point home even more clearly, what is the meaning of “chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8—it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cieled” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Exod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35—it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoised” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “wot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “suretiship” (Prov. 11:15), “sackbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Ezek. 30:21—i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadine” (Jer. 46:4), “amerce” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Exod. 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), “descry” (Judg. 1:23), “fanners” (Jer. 51:2), “felloes” (1 Kings 7:33), “glede” (Deut. 14:13), “glistering” (Luke 9:29), “habergeon” (Job 41:26), “implead” (Acts 19:38), “neesing” (Job 41:18), “nitre” (Prov. 25:20), “tabret” (Gen. 31:27), “wen” (Lev. 22:22)?
Having seen many examples of obsolete English, let us look at two verses—verses that are typical and that do not have to do with doctrine—and see how the unnaturalness of the English style hinders the reader’s comprehension. One verse is Luke 14:10: “But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee” (KJV).
Here is a simple story that should be clear. But look at all the problems interfering with an easy comprehension of it:k
1. There are five archaic, strange (to many Americans) terms and forms, such as “thou,” “art,” “thee,” “cometh,” and “shalt.”
2. For “bidden” we say “invited” today.
3. “Room” is erroneous. There were not different rooms. It means “place.”
4. Today the semicolon is not used in this way.
5. “Say unto” in modern English is “say to.”
6. The lack of quotation marks hinders the reader from knowing at a glance where the quotation stops.
7. “Shalt thou” is in reverse order. In English, even with the archaic “shalt” and “thou,” we would say, “thou shalt.”
8. The clause “have worship” is not the correct meaning at all. It means, rather, “be honored.”
9. The use of the colon here is wrong in today’s English.10. “Them that sit at meat with thee” is made clearer in saying “your fellow guests.”
Now read the NIV for clarity as well as beauty and dignity: “But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests.”
Luke penned a simple narrative; yet the KJV translation has ten items that hinder a natural English style, and the modern meaning of three of the words are not what Luke intended. This ought not to be. It is not being faithful to the original for today’s English. Faithfulness demands that the Bible be just as clear, simple, and natural as when the Holy Spirit inspired the original Hebrew and Greek. The KJV is now far from that.
First Corinthians 4:17 is another verse that illustrates the unnaturalness and obscurity of the KJV’s style: “For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.”
A much more difficult verse could have been selected, but this one is typical of the general style of the KJV. A part is almost unintelligible, and the rest is awkward. Notice what is almost unintelligible: “as I teach every where in every church.” What does that “as” mean? What is it comparing? Notice now the awkward language:
1. “For this cause” is not today’s language. Properly it should be “for this reason.”
2. “Have I sent” is antiquated and quaint. It is better to say, “I have sent.”
3. “Unto you” is not in regular speech today; “to you” is.
4. “Timotheus.” Who is that? Why not write, “Timothy”?
5. The word “beloved” as in “my beloved son” is not used outside the KJV—except in marriage ceremonies, in churches that use the KJV English, and in novels for the purpose of a literary effect. Rather we would say, “My son whom I love.”
6. The phrase “and faithful in the Lord” is poorly attached to the preceding. To say “who is faithful in the Lord” makes it much easier to read.
7. “Who shall bring you into remembrance” is poorly phrased. It is being unfaithful to the spirit of the original to have such stilted and obsolete English for today’s readers. How much simpler and more natural to say, “who will remind you”!
8. “My ways which be” is also clumsy and unreal. It is natural to say “my ways that are.”
Read again the KJV and then this rendering: “For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church” (NIV).
These obscurities in 1 Corinthians 4:17 may seem insignificant. They do not deal with the heart of the gospel, and a person can catch the general drift of what Paul is saying. But is that all we want? To catch the general drift of what God is saying to us? To know only the heart of the gospel?
If we believe that the Bible is God’s Word—inspired and inerrant, an infallible guide for our lives—are we going to be satisfied with knowing generally and vaguely what God is saying, and only the central truths? Did not God give us his whole Word? Are the details of what God said unimportant? Is it not important to know everything that God said and with clarity?
Yet the KJV adds to (and so alters) God’s Word, and it has now-obscure and misleading renderings of many verses. Scores of examples were given, but hundreds of others could have been given. For one who loves God and wants to know exactly what God says to him, a modern translation that is accurate and clear is necessary. Elsewhere I have written:
Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible.… For any preacher or theologian who loves God’s Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable.2
FETCHING A COMPASS IS STILL ARCHAIC.
Why not say circum-navigate! Or just sail around. T
Hey brother;
Well, I certainly do not feel honored to be quoted as such.
I have added my reply to this site in which you linked.
My main point is that the language of the KJV is archaic and nothing would be wrong with making it more precise. This point still stands despite any stupidity on my part.
The compass was NOT invented at that time I do not think. And the phrase, while obviosuly not literally meaning "to go fetch a compass (like go get one from the storage room) did originate AFTER the invention of the compass..
....i.e. an English colloquilism ....not drawn from the Greek.
Your brother in Christ;
Trevor Johnson
P.S. Next time you email me, please state your name so that we can converse civilly.
Well, I can hardly respond to each example, but overall I wonder why you stop at the NIV. It sounds like you'd be much more comfortable with the New Living Translation, or even one that translates the entire Bible using 500 basic English words.
Basically, and honestly, in 99% of the examples above I preferred the KJV rendering (obviously because they are accurate, but also because the language carries the Spirit in the Word and meaning in its fullest extent). In 1% of them I acknowledge the KJV is not as clear, but so what? Enlarge your vocabulary and/or consult a commentary if you must. Who said reading the Bible was supposed to be effortless? Anyway, if you have to paraphrase and outright rewrite the Hebrew and Greek to get the effect you desire you might as well go to that 500 word vocabulary Bible mentioned above.
Also, many of your examples are not translation issues so much as underlying manuscript issues. The NIV is corrupt foundationally on this score.
And, again: compass is a word that doesn't have anything to do with an instrument with a magnetized needle.
If you or anyone else has apprehension difficulties with non-New York Times english (circa 2006) then make a new translation, if you must, from the traditional text, and make it literal. Don't justify using corrupt manuscripts and non-literal renderings so that you don't have to make any effort to comprehend the Word of God. (And no I'm not going to qualify 'literal' vis-a-vis Bible translation in all the ways that needs to be qualified because I don't need to write a treatise to get the point across.)
The Holy Spirit is in the AV. The language you call wrong or too difficult is the Spirit talking to you. You may as well demand all writing that challenges your current limits be changed to suit your current state and demands. But anyway, it's a canard that the AV1611 is too difficult too understand. It wasn't in 1611, and it isn't today. And the arguments you make could have been made in 1611. The Word of God is not something you can get anything from when you take a man-centered approach. You have to be God-centered. Man wants to dictate to God what his Word is or should be. A God-centered approach is to accept the traditional text and make the effort to meet the Word of God at its level. The KJV can be understood by a child; but not a child who is making demands that God's Word conform to what he thinks it should be.
Post a Comment
<< Home