In the newest versions this is probably the result of the need to make a certain number of changes in order to qualify for copyright. That's bad enough. However, Westcott and Hort made over 36,000 changes against their commitment to do the most minimal possible revision of the Authorized Version or King James.
As I discovered some time ago from comparing the differences between different versions on the first three verses of Psalm 91 all the changes from version to version seem to have no purpose except to creat a confusion of tongues Babel-style in the Christian churches, making it impossible for Christians to quote consistently or read in unison, destroying the unity of the church in a diabolically subtle way, so subtle that some of the very best preachers have completely overlooked the deceit.
Here is another example, Isaiah 32:17: (Differences from the KJV in red and lt. blue. I bold the main words where they are the same as the KJV's.)
KJV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.I ask you, was there a COMPELLING NEED to change "assurance" into "confidence?" Is there some problem with the word "assurance" that escapes me? Is it an archaic word or a difficult word to understand? Or isn't this obviously change for change's sake?
RV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence for ever.
ESV: And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever.Now we've got "effect" where "work" is in the KJV, and "result" for "effect." I checked: the Hebrew does not have the same word in those places. And now "trust" replaces "confidence" which replaces the KJV's "assurance." Is there any explanation for this except change for change's sake? AND we've got a footnote too, giving us yet another synonym, just what we need.
Footnote:
* Or security
RSV: And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever. (Identical to the ESV)
ASV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and confidence for ever. (Same as the RV)
NASB: And the work of righteousness will be peace, And the service of righteousness, quietness and *confidence forever.
A real original there, in "service."
Another original, that "fruit."NIV: The fruit of righteousness will be peace; the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever.
I know we usually say "will" for "shall" but "shall" is correct and it isn't a strange-sounding word to us either, so why should it be changed? The RV and the ASV retain it, why shouldn't it be regarded as the standard reading?Webster's and Darby's are identical to the KJV
The RV, ASV and NASB also retain the KJV's "work," adding to the impression that there is no good reason to change THAT word either. The only change they all agree on is "assurance" and that just seems silly.
Come on, you CAN see that all this is nothing but Babel, can't you?
=====
Apparently my Anonymous commenter to this post can't see it. He's at pains to convince me that these choices were all made by scholars for scholarly reasons. If so, that's a pretty sad comment on scholarship. What could be more revealing of the uselessness of scholarly work than the results shown above?
Someone posting as Anonymous left a comment here and then reposted it, but although both came through to my email, neither posted here. I have no idea why not.
ReplyDeleteI will try to post it from my email:
===========
Reposting
First, the whole thrust of this seems to be misguided. If you believe that the words are exactly equal, then logically you should be ambivalent about whether they are changed or not. It should make no difference to you. The old truism that "a difference that makes no difference is no difference" comes to mind.
Secondly, the Hebrew root for "assurance" is generally admitted to be 'aman, from which comes our word "Amen".
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H539&t=KJV
However, the Hebrew used by the KJV for "assurance" more properly means "security" or "safety". This is why the word was changed:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H983&t=KJV
Third, the Hebrew root for the word "result" ('abadah) actually means "labor, service" as in manual labor. It is a form of the Hebrew word 'ebed, from which we get "slave" in Hebrew, or from which we get certain names (such as Abed-Nego, "servant of Nego"):
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5656&t=KJV
And in fact, the KJV itself only translated this Hebrew word as "effect" ONE time; but in 96 other instances it translated the same word as "service". What does that tell you about the appropriateness of "effect" in this passage, even for the KJV? And what does that tell you about the choices of other versions, such as the NASB?
As for what the NIV used here ("fruit") which you seem to think is an original, you might actually take the time to read the entry under Strong's in the Blue Letter Bible, which includes Gesenius' Lexicon. What you'll find is this:
(2) work, business, office, ........Isa 28:21; 32:17 [Hebrew character text] "and the work (i.e., the effect, the fruit) of righteousness shall be quietness,"
So far from being an innovation, this same meaning was recognized by Gesenius' lexicon back when it was published in 1846 - and it was recognized specifically in this *exact* verse.
I was comparing the word choices among the various versions to each other when I noted the originality of a couple of them. It was a sarcastic comment -- wow, now we have a new one.
ReplyDeleteI've commented elsewhere that the changes among the various versions are generally drawn from Strong's lists of synonyms for that word. If as you say one of the modern versions does have a better choice than the KJV's ("fruit" for instance) it's interesting that they don't agree with each other about those choices. Scholarship these days doesn't inspire much confidence/assurance/trust.
My position here is not that there aren't differences among the words, it's that the differences are too minor to have justified ANY of the changes that were made, beginning with the RV. The revising committee on which Westcott and Hort had such a strong influence were only supposed to make the most compellingly necessary changes in the King James. I do believe that my post above, and the others I did on Psalm 91, demonstrate change for change's sake.
I do trust the KJV translators to have known their stuff, and even if possibly one of the other choices was better than theirs, the degree of difference does not warrant the change -- and again, the lack of consensus shown in the differences among the versions doesn't speak well for scholarly consensus. Best stick with the KJV on the vast majority of the words the new versions so gratuitously changed.
Respect for the unity of the body of Christ ought to have had a higher priority than prissy differences in meaning.
And in fact, the KJV itself only translated this Hebrew word as "effect" ONE time; but in 96 other instances it translated the same word as "service". What does that tell you about the appropriateness of "effect" in this passage, even for the KJV? And what does that tell you about the choices of other versions, such as the NASB?
ReplyDeleteIt tells me that the KJV translators made a conscious choice to use a different word in this case for whatever reason -- probably because it fits the sense better -- and I see no reason to correct it. They weren't idiots, and all the nitpicking over their choices is ignoble pedantry.
The KJV -- and the Textus Receptus -- did need and still need some changes. I really don't know if any of the revisions succeeded in making any of the necessary changes because of all the UNnecessary ones that litter the field.
1 of 3; 4096 char limitation
ReplyDeleteI've commented elsewhere that the changes among the various versions are generally drawn from Strong's lists of synonyms for that word. If as you say one of the modern versions does have a better choice than the KJV's ("fruit" for instance) it's interesting that they don't agree with each other about those choices. Scholarship these days doesn't inspire much confidence/assurance/trust.
First, my comment was to let you know that the word choice ("fruit") was not new at all, nor was it original to the NIV. And coming as it did in Gesenius' 1846 Lexicon, it's also free of any charges of "revisionism" or any trumped-up innuendos of being inspired by Wescott and Hort, by virtue of the date.
The fact that scholars differ among themselves is natural; people of excellent education and honest intention may neverthless not agree on a particular word. And when they do disagree, they do not deserve to be denigrated for failure to reach agreement. The only way that you would assume they must all naturally come to the exact same conclusion on how to translate a word is if you held the simplistic view that translation was simply a one-for-one substitution, which it certainly is not. If it were, then a software program could simply do the translation and humans wouldn't be needed.
My position here is not that there aren't differences among the words, it's that the differences are too minor to have justified ANY of the changes that were made, beginning with the RV.
Then you are contradicting yourself. You've said here before in a previous blog post that we ordinary people lack the skills to make such updates, and that any such updates are better left to actual scholars. If you truly believed that - and assuming you count yourself among ordinary people, and are not secretly a scholar of ancient texts - then it naturally follows that you also lack the skills to tell whether or not the text needed updating or not. After all, the precise skills used to update the text would be exactly the same skills needed to determine if the text was updated apropriately or for no reason at all.
Therefore, when asked if the updates were needed or not, your only logical solution is to say "I don't know; I lack the proper education; I cannot tell."
On the other hand, if you insist that you do, in fact, know enough about the texts to be able to say whether or not a particular update was needed or not, then the same holds true for everyone else - amateur and laymen alike. The rest of us can make comments about whether or not the text was accurately updated or not, and to do so is *not* the sole province of bible scholars. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
2 of 3
ReplyDeleteThe revising committee on which Westcott and Hort had such a strong influence were only supposed to make the most compellingly necessary changes in the King James. I do believe that my post above, and the others I did on Psalm 91, demonstrate change for change's sake.
Whether or not Westcott & Hort exceeded their mandate is pretty much irrelevant, all of Burgon's fluster and noise notwithstanding. The KJV translation team also exceeded their mandate, and we are richer for their doing so. The only question that truly matters is: is their work product correct or not, does it improve upon the translation quality or upon the comprehensibility? I haven't seen any changes done for change's sake alone.
I do trust the KJV translators to have known their stuff,
Which you are free to believe. However, given the long list of mistakes in their Greek and Hebrew renderings, the historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies of rendering, etc. your position can only be one of faith, not of actual studied response. In fact, your position very closely approximates the Roman Catholic position of veneration for the Vulgate: a belief that the scholars of old were so unbelievably smart and godly that we shall never see their likes walking the earth again. That view stretches both imagination and generosity of spirit. Modern scholars are at least as well-educated and studied as the KJV translation team was; what's more, they have the benefit of massive amounts of study, new manuscripts, discoveries in archaeology and history, new documents in ancient languages, etc. that were not available in 1611. To believe that only the original 1611 scholars were qualified to translate the text is pretty close to Ruckmanism.
It tells me that the KJV translators made a conscious choice to use a different word in this case for whatever reason -- probably because it fits the sense better -- and I see no reason to correct it. They weren't idiots, and all the nitpicking over their choices is ignoble pedantry.
Or, it says that the KJV translators were simply doing what they told their readers they would do: varying the usage of English words, not for any linguistic or semantic reason, but for the sake of exercising the entire English vocabulary. I don't see that "effect" fits the sense any better. And while they were not idiots, the KJV translators were also not angels, handing down a divinely inspired translation. Inspiration applies to autographs, not fifth-generation copies of even earlier copies that are turned into English.
Don't get me wrong; the KJV is a superior translation; but it is far from perfect. And the issues with the KJV translation are not pedantic; but even if they were, logically you should not object. Again: if the terms are the same, then you should be ambivalent about them.
3 of 3
ReplyDeleteRespect for the unity of the body of Christ ought to have had a higher priority than prissy differences in meaning.
I'm aghast. The unity of the body of Christ is not dependent upon everyone agreeing to use a translation that dates the 17th century. That you could even believe something like that amazes me. Uniformity is not the goal of Bible translation; accuracy is. And good men and women may disagree on translation, without threatening the unity of the body of Christ.
The KJV -- and the Textus Receptus -- did need and still need some changes. I really don't know if any of the revisions succeeded in making any of the necessary changes because of all the UNnecessary ones that litter the field.
Two notes on this comment:
1. You admit that the KJV and TR need changes, but you also don't seem to think that anyone alive is competent enough to do the necessary work. This is nothing but the KJVO and/or TRO position, Lite(TM). It allows one to sound reasonable by admitting mistakes in the KJV, but then avoid the actual work of changing the KJV and/or TR by waving one's hands and saying "But who is good enough? Who is smart enough? Who is holy enough to perform this monumental task? Alas!" And naturally, having framed the dilemma in such a manner, the only solution - the default solution - is for everyone to accept what you actually wanted them to accept all along; i.e., the KJV is the only approved English Bible. Besides being a fairly transparent ploy, this is also an intellectual cop-out; a cheat.
2. You state that you do not know if necessary changes were made? How can this be? If you have not studied the versions you are discussing, then why would you go out on a limb and make comments about them? I wouldn't expect you to read the entire ERV or NASB (or whatever) in order to comment about it; that's unreasonable. But I would expect you to spend some time; for example, take an entire chapter (or an entire book) and go through it line-by-line with both versions open, and a Greek (or Hebrew) dictionary and concordance at hand. Have you done anything like that?
Hi again, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteFirst, my comment was to let you know that the word choice ("fruit") was not new at all, nor was it original to the NIV. And coming as it did in Gesenius' 1846 Lexicon, it's also free of any charges of "revisionism" or any trumped-up innuendos of being inspired by Wescott and Hort, by virtue of the date.
You seem to have missed my very simple point, though. All I was saying was that the word was "new" with respect to the list of the versions I gave, not in any other sense. I assume they all appear as alternatives on Strong's or some lexicon. The ONLY point I'm making is that it's a CHANGE from the KJV, just as all the other words I put in red are. Nothing else is implied about it.
The fact that scholars differ among themselves is natural; people of excellent education and honest intention may neverthless not agree on a particular word. And when they do disagree, they do not deserve to be denigrated for failure to reach agreement.
But the point of my post is that the versions are simply multiplying change for change's sake. If their concern had been at all for preserving the Bible read by millions, which was a major concern of the KJV translators, these sorts of changes could not have been considered for half a minute. I see NO excuse for ANY of them.
The only way that you would assume they must all naturally come to the exact same conclusion on how to translate a word is if you held the simplistic view that translation was simply a one-for-one substitution, which it certainly is not. If it were, then a software program could simply do the translation and humans wouldn't be needed.
I'm saying the wild variety of the changes shows that these versions SHOULD NOT EXIST, PERIOD! If Westcott and Hort had not started the ball rolling with their disrespectful work I'm sure none of it WOULD exist. Even James White said in the recent debate that he doesn't approve of so many translations either, and that most of them were done simply because the publishing houses didn't want to have to pay for another publisher's work.
+++My position here is not that there aren't differences among the words, it's that the differences are too minor to have justified ANY of the changes that were made, beginning with the RV.+++
Then you are contradicting yourself. You've said here before in a previous blog post that we ordinary people lack the skills to make such updates, and that any such updates are better left to actual scholars. If you truly believed that - and assuming you count yourself among ordinary people, and are not secretly a scholar of ancient texts - then it naturally follows that you also lack the skills to tell whether or not the text needed updating or not. After all, the precise skills used to update the text would be exactly the same skills needed to determine if the text was updated apropriately or for no reason at all.
Are you justifying all the different translations or just one in particular or what?
I've also said I think any changes to the KJV need to be made under church authority, not by publishing companies or loners. The very lack of agreement among these versions speaks against anything really scholarly going on in any case. It suggests other concerns, such as copyright qualification or change for change's sake.
Therefore, when asked if the updates were needed or not, your only logical solution is to say "I don't know; I lack the proper education; I cannot tell."
Oh but I CAN judge the existence of so MANY different versions, so MANY changes. Such lack of agreement among the versions pretty much nullifies them all. However, I can well imagine that translators of an authorized revision might choose against the KJV in preferring ONE of the choices of ONE of these versions, but all of them together only contribute to Babel.
Whether or not Westcott & Hort exceeded their mandate is pretty much irrelevant, all of Burgon's fluster and noise notwithstanding. The KJV translation team also exceeded their mandate, and we are richer for their doing so.
ReplyDeleteNot according to everything I've read. The KJV translators were charged with preserving previous translations insofar as it was possible, and they did so. The W-H committee show every sign that they sought the opposite, making every change they could think of. And the many new versions appear to have continued the practice.
The only question that truly matters is: is their work product correct or not, does it improve upon the translation quality or upon the comprehensibility? I haven't seen any changes done for change's sake alone.
I'm sorry I've failed to convince you. I suppose we will have to continue to disagree.
+++I do trust the KJV translators to have known their stuff, +++
Which you are free to believe. However, given the long list of mistakes in their Greek and Hebrew renderings, the historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies of rendering, etc. your position can only be one of faith, not of actual studied response. In fact, your position very closely approximates the Roman Catholic position of veneration for the Vulgate: a belief that the scholars of old were so unbelievably smart and godly that we shall never see their likes walking the earth again. That view stretches both imagination and generosity of spirit. Modern scholars are at least as well-educated and studied as the KJV translation team was; what's more, they have the benefit of massive amounts of study, new manuscripts, discoveries in archaeology and history, new documents in ancient languages, etc. that were not available in 1611. To believe that only the original 1611 scholars were qualified to translate the text is pretty close to Ruckmanism.
Interesting. An early commenter on my Bible posts told me the Critical Text people would be out for blood if they got onto my blog. Your comments here are not worth answering.
It seems to me "the proof is in the pudding" and the RESULTS of all of today's supposed scholarly superiority appear to have been nothing but confusion for the Church. It all started with W-H's corrupted Greek texts plus the 36,000 unnecessary changes and the proliferating versions since then have only carried on in their footsteps. The KJV translators did nothing even remotely that destructive to their predecessors.
+++It tells me that the KJV translators made a conscious choice to use a different word in this case for whatever reason -- +++
Or, it says that the KJV translators were simply doing what they told their readers they would do: varying the usage of English words, not for any linguistic or semantic reason, but for the sake of exercising the entire English vocabulary.
Odd then if that was their reason that they only did it in one out of 96 places where that Hebrew word was used.
And while they were not idiots, the KJV translators were also not angels, handing down a divinely inspired translation. Inspiration applies to autographs, not fifth-generation copies of even earlier copies that are turned into English. .
I've never claimed anything for them except superior scholarship and superior respect for the work they were doing. And that becomes more and more manifest the more I learn about all this.
Don't get me wrong; the KJV is a superior translation; but it is far from perfect. And the issues with the KJV translation are not pedantic; but even if they were, logically you should not object. Again: if the terms are the same, then you should be ambivalent about them.
You seem to have a knack for missing my point.
1 of 4
ReplyDeleteBut the point of my post is that the versions are simply multiplying change for change's sake.
Yes, I understood the point of your post. However, you have not demonstrated that the changes were done for no other reason than to make changes. Simply because you don't *like* the changes, or cannot *understand* the rationale, or refuse to *accept* the reason offered -- that does not mean that they were done for no reason whatsoever.
And yes, some versions picked different words than other versions - that also doesn't mean that they were changed without reason. It's just that one revision committee felt that a particular reason carried more weight than another revision committee did.
Your entire "changed for no reason" line of argument carries the tinge of conspiracy with it; I don't think you need to dig that deep, or go off the deep end. And yes, I'm aware of the claim that such changes were only made to satisfy the requirement to obtain a copyright. However, that's just another nonsense charge made by people who don't understand how copyright law works. It also ignores the history of the KJV, which was itself produced under copyright in England. In fact, to this day it is *still* under a perpetual crown copyright in the United Kingdom.
Going back to the Isaiah example you cited here: I believe I showed that changes were done for very GOOD reasons: to conform with the Hebrew root words, or to align with word usages elsewhere. That was why I spent all that time digging into Strongs and the Hebrew words in question; I wanted to show you some of the rationale behind these decisions.
If their concern had been at all for preserving the Bible read by millions, which was a major concern of the KJV translators, these sorts of changes could not have been considered for half a minute.
Actually, no it wasn't. Their KJV translator's goal was not preservation, but improvement. Preface from the translators to the KJV:
Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.
++++Respect for the unity of the body of Christ ought to have had a higher priority than prissy differences in meaning. ++++
ReplyDeleteI'm aghast. The unity of the body of Christ is not dependent upon everyone agreeing to use a translation that dates the 17th century. That you could even believe something like that amazes me.
The unity of the body of Christ DOES depend on our having a consistent and standardized Bible, I do definitely believe that. If the revising committee had done their job properly we would have a respectfully updated Bible, not the confusion and chaos we now have.
Uniformity is not the goal of Bible translation; accuracy is. And good men and women may disagree on translation, without threatening the unity of the body of Christ.
It's already threatened, it's already undone by the multiplied Bibles.
Once again, this is not a matter of people merely disagreeing, this is a matter of multiplying Bibles that show change for change's sake alone. That is how I see it and that is what I believe my post evidenced. And uniformity OUGHT to be part of the goal, as the KJV translators recognized, as their effort was to make one good Bible from the many previous ones.
+++The KJV -- and the Textus Receptus -- did need and still need some changes. I really don't know if any of the revisions succeeded in making any of the necessary changes because of all the UNnecessary ones that litter the field.+++
Two notes on this comment:
1. You admit that the KJV and TR need changes, but you also don't seem to think that anyone alive is competent enough to do the necessary work.
Yes, based on the PUDDING PROOF formerly mentioned. The results of today's scholarship are anything but inspiring of confidence in their work. The cavalier attitude, the inclusion of men of known liberal attitudes toward the Bible in decisions about it (Metzger), and the proliferation of Bibles that show a complete lack of respect for God's word and God's people.
This is nothing but the KJVO and/or TRO position, Lite(TM). It allows one to sound reasonable by admitting mistakes in the KJV, but then avoid the actual work of changing the KJV and/or TR by waving one's hands and saying "But who is good enough? Who is smart enough? Who is holy enough to perform this monumental task? Alas!" And naturally, having framed the dilemma in such a manner, the only solution - the default solution - is for everyone to accept what you actually wanted them to accept all along; i.e., the KJV is the only approved English Bible. Besides being a fairly transparent ploy, this is also an intellectual cop-out; a cheat.
Sigh. I take Burgon's word for it that such changes are needed. I love his arguments, I love his reasoning. He makes sense to me in a way NOBODY else does on this issue. You want to smear me as a KJVO though I am anything but. I agree with some of their arguments, but I am not a KJVO. And I've never even read Ruckman and have no interest in reading him.
We'd HAVE a decent updated English Bible -- probably only one, maybe at most two or three -- if the W-H team had done what they were supposed to do. Burgon says that eight of that committee could have given us a good revision. Too bad that history went in a different direction. To my mind this has to be God's judgment against the Church that W and H were able to do what they did and the modern versions have just gone on adding to the confusion.
2. You state that you do not know if necessary changes were made?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's my job to know what changes should be made. I protest against the whole effort these days to find fault with the KJV. I'm sure there are faults but the most important concern is first to expose the terrible thing that has happened to the Church since W and H with their corrupted Greek texts and meaningless changes in the English and all the modern Bible versions since. That's what my blog is about. I try to stay away from the attacks on the KJV. That's irrelevant to my purpose.
How can this be? If you have not studied the versions you are discussing, then why would you go out on a limb and make comments about them? I wouldn't expect you to read the entire ERV or NASB (or whatever) in order to comment about it; that's unreasonable. But I would expect you to spend some time; for example, take an entire chapter (or an entire book) and go through it line-by-line with both versions open, and a Greek (or Hebrew) dictionary and concordance at hand. Have you done anything like that?
What I do on my blog I try my best to be sure never exceeds my capacities or my learning.
Thanks for your comments.
2 of 4
ReplyDeleteEven James White said in the recent debate that he doesn't approve of so many translations either, and that most of them were done simply because the publishing houses didn't want to have to pay for another publisher's work.
Then both you and James White should read the KJV translators' Preface to the Reader:
Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.
I see NO excuse for ANY of them.
I'm saying the wild variety of the changes shows that these versions SHOULD NOT EXIST, PERIOD!
That's just a tantrum. There is no "wild variety"; in fact, the changes are all within the general sense of the word, weighing the precise meanings and contextual usage. What the translators have done is the same as if you were trying to decide between the word "cook" and the word "bake". They are close, but not the same - and the usage would be context-driven.
Let me turn this around and ask you a question - suppose you were to ignore all the varieties out there now, and just pick one Bible from each majority manuscript tradition: Textus Receptus, Critical Text, and Majority Text. If you picked what are generally acknowledged to be the best representative Bibles from these groups (NKJV, NASB), and ignored all the other versions, do you think you could live with that?
If Westcott and Hort had not started the ball rolling with their disrespectful work I'm sure none of it WOULD exist.
You seem obsessively hung up on Westcott and Hort. What you don't seem to realize is that there were already *other* revision efforts underway; Westcott and Hort was only one such effort. If it hadn't been those two, then it would have been someone else. Probably multiple someone else's. The history of the English Bible shows that it was revised about every 50 years or so. The KJV was long overdue for such a change. The issues with the KJV had been building up and accumulating, like a snowy hillside ready for an avalanche. Given the advance of the English language, improved scholarship and Near East discoveries, revision was *bound* to happen.
3 of 4
ReplyDelete+++My position here is not that there aren't differences among the words, it's that the differences are too minor to have justified ANY of the changes that were made, beginning with the RV.+++
Yes, yes, yes. I've understood your position all along. My point back to you, then, is this:
1. If the changes are really that minor, then you shouldn't really care one way or the other if they are made. You should be ambivalent about it. Instead of ambivalence, you are quite upset over it.
2. You seem to think that tradition is something that needs to be protected. I have no problem with that, as long as it takes back seat to accuracy and clarity in the English language. You are continually trying to put tradition in the front seat, though, and push accuracy and clarity to the back seat.
3. Finally, you don't seem to realize that the KJV translators already addressed your exact complaint in their Preface. The translators discussed the charge flung at them by the Roman Catholics who - like yourself, preferred to have an unchanging text - and who also ridiculed the KJV translators for needing to make changes to their Protestant Bible so often:
Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, FOR ALTERING AND AMENDING OUR TRANSLATIONS SO OFT; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? Saint Augustine was not afraid to exhort S. Jerome to a Palinodia or recantation; the same S. Augustine was not ashamed to retractate, we might say revoke, many things that had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. If we will be sons of the Truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men's too, if either be any way an hindrance to it.
As can be seen from this excerpt from the Preface, the KJV translators were precisely the kind of scholars who would have welcomed the knowledge that something was wrong with a particular translation, and would not have allowed tradition - or upon their own personal pride - to stop them from making the necessary changes. So there you have it, from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
4 of 4
ReplyDeleteAre you justifying all the different translations or just one in particular or what?
What I'm saying is that you're trying to have it both ways: First, you're trying to convince your blog audience that these changes weren't necessary. OK, fine. But then when someone points out that the changes improved accuracy and were valid changes, then you say that the business of making changes is delicate and shouldn't be left to mere laymen and amateurs.
But you're (presumably) a layman and an amateur. So what gives you the right to say that the changes weren't necessary? If advanced scholarship is required to know where such changes should - and should not - be made, then how can you possibly tell us that the changes were unnecessary? Do you have such scholarship under your belt?
I've also said I think any changes to the KJV need to be made under church authority, not by publishing companies or loners.
We don't have a state church in the USA. What kind of "church authority" are you talking about?
Seems to me you are actually setting up a worse problem: since each denomination will be reluctant to recognize the church authority of the others, we'll wind up with more Bible versions, not less. There will be a Methodist Bible, a Pentecostal Bible, an Anglican Bible, a Lutheran Bible, and then of course variations within: each group will want their special "test verses" to be translated a certain way. So Pentecostals will split into pre-millenial, post-millenial, pre-trib, post-trib, Oneness, etc. and the same for other denominations.
I believe it's CLEAR from the actual EVIDENCE of the actual WORDS that change for change's sake is the only reasonable explanation, and the argument that scholarly choice was involved at all is contradicted by the fact that the versions all disagree. I don't buy the pat idea that everybody must disagree. If there is such a thing as a best choice there is certainly no hope that it's been found among the chaos.
ReplyDeleteLet's say it's not a conspiracy to destroy the Bible, just a case of extreme insensitivity to the needs of the Church and the honor of God's word.
Of COURSE the task of the KJV was improvement -- it was ALSO preservation -- where this did not conflict with the goal of improvement. To preserve the Bishop's Bible insofar as possible was part of their commitment. In the end they apparently preserved less of that Bible than others, but they did succeed in their effort to make one good Bible of the previous Bibles. That's as much preservation as improvement.
I can't see that the revision of 1881 or anything since reflects the slightest concern with real necessary improvement, and forget preservation altogether.
1. If the changes are really that minor, then you shouldn't really care one way or the other if they are made. You should be ambivalent about it. Instead of ambivalence, you are quite upset over it.
ReplyDeleteNo you are NOT getting my point. The point IS to preserve the Bible for sake of the body of Christ and not make changes that are not really necessary. Minor changes are in fact an insult to God and to the body of Christ in that they are manifestly UNNECESSARY and serve only to deprive us of a standardized text.
What I'm saying is that you're trying to have it both ways: First, you're trying to convince your blog audience that these changes weren't necessary. OK, fine. But then when someone points out that the changes improved accuracy and were valid changes, then you say that the business of making changes is delicate and shouldn't be left to mere laymen and amateurs.
ReplyDeleteBut they did NOT improve accuracy, they are NOT valid changes, I have NOT agreed with that, they are nothing but changes for change's sake and that is OBVIOUS from what I posted above.
IF it ever came to an authorized revision THEN I'd say leave it to the experts. They would have the job of making ONE Bible. What I'm pointing out is the chaos of multipled clearly unnecessary changes. It's absurd to the point of daffyness to try to explain this chaos as the result of SCHOLARLY CHOICES.
++++I've also said I think any changes to the KJV need to be made under church authority, not by publishing companies or loners.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have a state church in the USA. What kind of "church authority" are you talking about?
It's true that none exists as such, but the point is that business interests shouldn't be making our Bibles. Somehow the orthodox Bible-believing churches would have to come together and form an authorizing entity for this purpose. There are local pastors' gatherings, at least in my area, so denominational differences CAN be overcome. Of course there must be no Unitarians on the committee as there were on Westcott and Hort's, and no liberals, etc., only all church-endorsed Bible-believers from all the denominations and their respective seminaries. Such differences as Calvinism versus Arminianism simply have to be set aside for the work.
2. You seem to think that tradition is something that needs to be protected. I have no problem with that, as long as it takes back seat to accuracy and clarity in the English language. You are continually trying to put tradition in the front seat, though, and push accuracy and clarity to the back seat
ReplyDeleteI do not put tradition ahead of accuracy. I believe the complaints against the KJV as to accuracy and clarity are mostly -- I say MOSTLY -- trumped up by people who don't have the ability or the right to judge such things but in fact are mostly reacting against the KJVO movement.
We HAVE accuracy and clarity in the KJV, I simply deny all your complaints against it. SOME CHANGES ARE NEEDED, yes, I've been convinced of that by men such as Burgon, but nothing to the extent you seem to have in mind and far far far from the chaotic mess we have among all the Bible versions today. Accuracy and clarity, HA! This is chaos, confusion, Babel!
My concern is that there is a basically DESTRUCTIVE mentality afoot here, that's why I make so much of tradition. The destructive mentality began with Westcott and Hort and continues in the kind of thinking you are exhibiting. As long as that persists, yes, I'm going to dig in my heels on behalf of tradition.
Seems to me you are actually setting up a worse problem: since each denomination will be reluctant to recognize the church authority of the others, we'll wind up with more Bible versions, not less. There will be a Methodist Bible, a Pentecostal Bible, an Anglican Bible, a Lutheran Bible, and then of course variations within: each group will want their special "test verses" to be translated a certain way. So Pentecostals will split into pre-millenial, post-millenial, pre-trib, post-trib, Oneness, etc. and the same for other denominations.
ReplyDeleteThere were both Anglicans and Puritans among the KJV translators. I believe it is possible for Bible believers to come together for such a cause without allowing all the secondary issues to become a problem.
But even the mess you are suggesting sounds better to me than the mess we have -- at least we would have clear denominational Bibles rather than publishing company Bibles and a whole church could rally around its own Bible. That would take care of SOME of the chaos I'm talking about.
But you're (presumably) a layman and an amateur. So what gives you the right to say that the changes weren't necessary?
ReplyDeleteONCE AGAIN I'm commenting on the MULTIPLICATION OF CHANGES. Any particular change MIGHT be better, I am NOT judging that. AGAIN if we were to get an authorized revision I would leave it to the experts to make that decision. BUT I think the chaos we now have makes it unfortunately only too clear that change for change's sake HAS BEEN the criterion, not the scholarly judgment of accuracy as you would like to believe.
If advanced scholarship is required to know where such changes should - and should not - be made, then how can you possibly tell us that the changes were unnecessary? Do you have such scholarship under your belt?
Any idiot can tell that these changes were unnecessary as I've presented them.
Open your eyes.
Finally, you don't seem to realize that the KJV translators already addressed your exact complaint in their Preface. The translators discussed the charge flung at them by the Roman Catholics who - like yourself, preferred to have an unchanging text - and who also ridiculed the KJV translators for needing to make changes to their Protestant Bible so often:
ReplyDeleteYet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, FOR ALTERING AND AMENDING OUR TRANSLATIONS SO OFT; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? Saint Augustine was not afraid to exhort S. Jerome to a Palinodia or recantation; the same S. Augustine was not ashamed to retractate, we might say revoke, many things that had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. If we will be sons of the Truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men's too, if either be any way an hindrance to it.
As can be seen from this excerpt from the Preface, the KJV translators were precisely the kind of scholars who would have welcomed the knowledge that something was wrong with a particular translation, and would not have allowed tradition - or upon their own personal pride - to stop them from making the necessary changes. So there you have it, from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
It's really galling that anyone would use this quotation for such a purpose I must say.
NECESSARY changes NOBODY is objecting to, nor as many changes as necessary FROM TIME TO TIME EITHER. In fact I've said over and over that if Westcott and Hort had not foisted their false Greek texts and their stupid meaningless changes on the church of their day, the KJV could have been updated and corrected as needed over time.
What has happened is that thanks to Westcott and Hort and the modern Bible versions it isn't even possible now to DO the necessary changes.
AGAIN, what I'm objecting to is the proliferation of idiotic UNNECESSARY changes only for the sake of change. That's the point of my post, the changes are UNNECESSARY. Along with multiplied Bible versions full of such stupid meaningless changes, all differing from each other, all contributing NOTHING BUT CHAOS to the current Church.
+++Even James White said in the recent debate that he doesn't approve of so many translations either, and that most of them were done simply because the publishing houses didn't want to have to pay for another publisher's work.+++
ReplyDeleteThen both you and James White should read the KJV translators' Preface to the Reader:
Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.
Do you REALLY think they could be thinking of the CRAZINESS we have today, making so much of minor changes --all to be found on Strong's list of synonyms for a particular word -- that contribute almost nothing to improving the understanding of a passage?
Isaiah 32:17 is perfectly clear in the KJV and did not benefit from any of the changes made, and again, all of those changes are just niggling little subsitutions that accomplish nothing for the sense and serve only to make it impossible for Christians to share in a standard Bible.
++++I see NO excuse for ANY of them.
I'm saying the wild variety of the changes shows that these versions SHOULD NOT EXIST, PERIOD!++++
That's just a tantrum. There is no "wild variety"; in fact, the changes are all within the general sense of the word, weighing the precise meanings and contextual usage.
The wild variety is in the fact that there are so many changes at all, and the fact that the differences are minor only adds insult to injury.
What the translators have done is the same as if you were trying to decide between the word "cook" and the word "bake". They are close, but not the same - and the usage would be context-driven.
No, they aren't even that different. Again, when the charge is to preserve as much as possible of the previous translations, and make ONLY COMPELLINGLY NECESSARY CHANGES FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND ACCURACY such changes are UNNECESSARY.
Let me turn this around and ask you a question - suppose you were to ignore all the varieties out there now, and just pick one Bible from each majority manuscript tradition: Textus Receptus, Critical Text, and Majority Text. If you picked what are generally acknowledged to be the best representative Bibles from these groups (NKJV, NASB), and ignored all the other versions, do you think you could live with that?
Not any more. Get all the stuff from Westcott and Hort out of them -- ALL OF IT -- and then we'll see what's left.
++++If Westcott and Hort had not started the ball rolling with their disrespectful work I'm sure none of it WOULD exist.+++
You seem obsessively hung up on Westcott and Hort. What you don't seem to realize is that there were already *other* revision efforts underway; Westcott and Hort was only one such effort. If it hadn't been those two, then it would have been someone else. Probably multiple someone else's. The history of the English Bible shows that it was revised about every 50 years or so. The KJV was long overdue for such a change.
What is the matter with you? Haven't I said the right kind of revision would have been welcomed? What we got was a mutilation, not a revision!
The issues with the KJV had been building up and accumulating, like a snowy hillside ready for an avalanche. Given the advance of the English language, improved scholarship and Near East discoveries, revision was *bound* to happen.
You've been arguing with your straw man most of the time here and it's getting tiresome.
I've said the right kind of revision should have been done, would have been a good thing. The wrong kind of revision was done instead.
If I'm obsessed with Westcott and Hort then stay away from my blog because that's what it's about.
I think I may already have answered this, but another answer won't hurt:
ReplyDeleteHowever, you have not demonstrated that the changes were done for no other reason than to make changes.
I believe that my blog post demonstrates it to anyone who has an open mind and I can only refer you back to it. I was amazed myself at what I saw when I first made this sort of comparison and I want to do many more of them here. The usual comparison is meant to show the differences in the Greek texts and I'll eventually do some of those too on the New Testament, God willing. Please keep in mind I'm not talking about anyone's motivations, I can't read minds, but the effect is change for change's sake. Any scholarly rationale for any of those changes, knowing the choices of all the other translations that came before, would have to be quite strained.
Simply because you don't *like* the changes, or cannot *understand* the rationale, or refuse to *accept* the reason offered -- that does not mean that they were done for no reason whatsoever.
This sort of comment shows that you are not arguing in good faith but only trying to find ways to accuse me of something. Again, the motivations of those who did the translations isn't the point, I can't know their motivations. But even if they think they made the choices for scholarly reasons I'd nevertheless point out that the result shows something else.
And yes, some versions picked different words than other versions - that also doesn't mean that they were changed without reason. It's just that one revision committee felt that a particular reason carried more weight than another revision committee did.
It could be, but the result is rather odd if that's the case, and it seems to me you are simply refusing to look clearly at the word differences in the example I gave. I believe it speaks for itself.
(In answer to this commenter's post which I have deleted):
ReplyDeleteYou are incredibly rude. What absolute gall to come to my blog and talk to me like that, and do it Anonymously too.
No, you have NOT got my point. You've been missing it from the beginning. What you think answered me was not an answer, and I answered THAT in any case.
Early on I almost called you a sophist but thought that would be a bit incendiary so I didn't. I'll say it now. Your whole approach is sophistry, along with accusing me of various straw man positions of your own preoccuptions. You've misread me in every conceivable way. You've said just about nothing in good faith. You mistake my style for personal reactions, and you misread the fact that I don't have your arrogance.
Do not come back to this blog. You will be deleted, and I'm going to delete your last rude post as well.
This commenter missed my very simple points all along and perhaps I should have said so more strongly. His very first statement missed by a mile:
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that the words are exactly equal,
This is one of the stupidest misreadings I’ve ever encountered. How could anyone get out of my post that I think the words are all exactly equal? This boggles the mind, but I tried to be "fair" and polite about it, probably a big mistake.
then logically you should be ambivalent about whether they are changed or not. It should make no difference to you.
The point of my post was that change itself contributes to confusion among Christians -- any change. This idea that it should "make no difference" to me considering that the whole post is about the difference it makes misses my point to a degree of severe wackiness.
Secondly, the Hebrew root for "assurance" is generally admitted to be 'aman, from which comes our word "Amen".
However, the Hebrew used by the KJV for "assurance" more properly means "security" or "safety". This is why the word was changed:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H983&t=KJV
Now he's going on to a series of irrelevant and pedantic points. Even if some scholarly considerations are involved you still have to explain the differences among all those versions, all done presumably by reputable scholars, all choosing among manifestly minor differences of meaning, which serve only to put unjustifiable distance between them and the perfectly appropriate choice by the KJV translators.
Third, the Hebrew root for the word "result" ('abadah) actually means "labor, service" as in manual labor...
Etc. etc. etc. The guy is positively addicted to pedantic pronouncements. Nothing in my post suggested the alternative terms were not appropriate possibilities under the right circumstances, I even checked Strong’s myself about the Hebrew, yet he seems to feel he has to lecture me about this obvious point.
And in fact, the KJV itself only translated this Hebrew word as "effect" ONE time; but in 96 other instances it translated the same word as "service". What does that tell you about the appropriateness of "effect" in this passage, even for the KJV? And what does that tell you about the choices of other versions, such as the NASB?
As I do go on to say, it tells me that the KJV translators preferred it in this particular instance, probably because it makes more sense in this case. But wait, he'll miss this point too and claim that it was just for "cosmetic" purposes that they made the choice even though it was only once out of 96 times that they made it.
As for what the NIV used here ("fruit") which you seem to think is an original,
This is another wacky inexplicable missing of my very simple remark.
you might actually take the time to read the entry under Strong's in the Blue Letter Bible, which includes Gesenius' Lexicon. What you'll find is this:
(2) work, business, office, ........Isa 28:21; 32:17 [Hebrew character text] "and the work (i.e., the effect, the fruit) of righteousness shall be quietness,"
So far from being an innovation, this same meaning was recognized by Gesenius' lexicon back when it was published in 1846 - and it was recognized specifically in this *exact* verse.
How can anyone miss the point to this extent? And he won’t accept my correction either that it was only in the context of the changes being tallied that I remarked that the word “fruit” was “original.”
This could go on and on as he just never got it at all but I think I'll stop here.