1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
The KJV reputation is seen in the prefaces of modern translations.
1917 Jewish Publication Society TA'ANACH preface: "We are, it is hardly needful to say, deeply grateful for the works of our non-Jewish predecessors, such as the Authorised Version with its admirable diction, which can never be surpassed"
New King James Version:
"For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English-speaking peoples of the world. The precision of translation of which it is historically renowned, and its majesty of style, have enabled that monumental version of the Word of God to become the mainspring of the religion, language, and legal foundations of our civilization.
Although the Elizabethan period and our own era share in zeal for technical advance, the former period was more aggressively devoted to classical learning. Along with this awakened concern for the classics came a flourishing companion in interest in the Scriptures, an interest that was enlivened by the conviction that the manuscripts were providentially handed down and were a trustworthy record of the inspired Word of God. The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation, and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering. On the one hand, the scholars were almost as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as with their native English. On the other hand, their reverence for the divine Author and His Word assured a translation of the Scriptures in which only a principle of utmost accuracy could be accepted.
In 1786 Catholic scholar Alexander Geddes said of the King James Bible, "If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent." George Bernard Shaw became a literary legend in our century because of his severe and often humorous criticisms of our most cherished values. Surprisingly, however, Shaw pays the following tribute to the scholars commissioned by King James: "The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the Word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result." History agrees with these estimates. Therefore, while seeking to unveil the excellent form of the traditional English Bible, special care has also been taken in the present edition to preserve the work of precision which is the legacy of the 1611 translators."
21st century King James version of the holy bible:
The KJ21® is unique among modern Bibles in that it is closer in language to the original King James Version than any other Bible copyrighted in the twentieth century. Unlike all other modern Bibles, it alone retains the power, beauty, and poetic language of the glorious King James Version, while at the same time it is presented in a state-of-the-art format. Readers of recently published versions of the Holy Bible tend to be unaware of the unsurpassed, indeed unequaled, power, beauty, and majesty of King James Bible language. Read what literary critics and authorities have said about the King James Version: Prof. Charles A. Dinsmore, for many years professor of literature at Yale Divinity School, in his great work The English Bible as Literature, spoke of "the unique and sovereign greatness of our Standard English Version," saying:
"It is unlike any other book in our language, and in charm and power is above them all."
Prof. William Lyon Phelps, educator, essayist, and longtime professor of English literature, said in reference to the King James Version:
"Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized Version of the English Bible is the best example of English literature that the world has ever seen."
Social and literary critic H.L. Mencken, rarely extravagant in his praise, said:
"It is the most beautiful of all translations of the Bible; indeed it is probably the most beautiful piece of writing in all the literature of the world."
Dr. Walter Russell Bowie, a member of the 1946 Revision Committee of the Revised Standard Version, wrote:
"The venerable English version, The King James Bible, which is now more than 300 years old, has still continued to hold its place upon the lecterns of the majority of the churches. What is the determining reason for that? . . . The cause for that can be put into a single sentence. They have loved it because it has seemed to them incomparably beautiful. It is right that men and women should desire and instinctively expect that the form in which the Bible is presented to them should be beautiful. They have come to church to hear the word of Him who made the morning stars to sing together, and therefore no version can be acceptable unless it has a form and cadence which make it speak home to their souls. The glory of the King James Version has always been that it falls rightly on the ear. In it the meaning of the words seems set to music."
New American Standard Bible:
In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version.
NET:Until 1885, when the Revised Version was published in England, the King James Version reigned supreme.
NET:Until 1885, when the Revised Version was published in England, the King James Version reigned supreme.
The Complete Jewish Bible) "The King James Version is unmatched in the Beauty of it's language; moreover, English would not be what it is without it."
ESV:The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV).
Contemporary English Version"The most important document in the history of the English language is the King James Version of the Bible. To measure it's spiritual impact on the English speaking world would be more impossible than counting the grains of sand along the ocean shores. Historically many Bible Translators have attempted in some measure to retain the form of the King James Version. But the translators of the Contemporary English Version have dilligently sought to the capture the spirit of the King James Version by following certain principles set forth by it's translators in the document "The Translators to the Reader" which was printed in the earliest editions.""This is the Word of God which we translate."
"Accuracy, beauty, clarity, and dignity- All of these can and must be acheived in the translation of the Bible. After all as these translators of the King James Version stated.
"This is the Word of God which we translate.""
Word for Word vs.Dynamic
A Word for word translation, officially known as formal equivalence, is generally the philosophy of the Authorized Version, as well as several others in search of literal accuracy as to what the Hebrew and Greek are saying.
In the majority of modern Bible Translations their has been a popular trend to use Dynamic ot "thought for thought" translation methods. "Word for Word" or formal equivalence is where individually each word is found a linguistic equivalent. In Dynamic or "thought for thought" each sentence is paraphrased to give a summarized thought of the text. So it is in search of the intentions of the authors.
One of the greatest problems of dynamic translation is that it does not respect the view of inspiration of conservative bible believers. Conservatives take the Bible literally when it is stated that the words of the Bible are the inspired Word of God. Leland Rykin is a Bible translator for the English Standard Version.
"The author's own words matter. Publishers and editers are not ordinarily allowed to change the words of literary texts. Readers expect to recieve the actual words of an actual author. As changes in language mark texts from bygone ages difficult archaic, and even obsolete, readers are educated into the meaning of words. Should we not treat the words and the text of the Bible with the same respect that we show towards Shakespeare and Milton? Do not the very words of biblical authors deserve the same protection from alteration that author's normally receive? Should we not expect reader's to muster the same level of rigor for the Bible that they are supposed to summon in high school and college literature courses? ... My answer is that it cannot. Translation should not be occasion for license. The ordinary rules for textual accuracy, integrity, and reliability still prevail. In fact, I would have thought that Bible would be the last book which would take liberties." Leland Rykin, The Word of God in English pg. 30-31.
Many publishers focus on the issue of readability vs. accuracy. What is more important? The modern bible translator explains:
“An English Bible translation should strive for maximum readability only within the parameters of accurately expressing what the original actually says, including the difficulty inherent in the original text. The crucial question that should govern translation is what the original authors actually wrote, not our speculations over how they would express themselves today or how we would express the content of the Bible. The fact that the New Testament was written in koine Greek should not lead translators to translate the Bible in a uniformly colloquial style. Finally, a good translation does not attempt to make the Bible simpler than it was for the original audience” (Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 100, 101).
Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line;
here a little, and there a little:
The brilliance of Italicized wordsOne tradition in the AV, which is rarely carried over into the Modern translation is italicized words. Whenever a word is added for literary purposes, it is italicized. This an incredible way to solve the readability verses accuracy debate. Whenever there is weakness in the readability of a wooden literally translated text one can add italicized words, which the reader will be able to discern as not in the text but helpful for reading.
Yet the majority of modern versions do not italicize their added words. Why? Well, for one thing, it helps them to sell choppy versions like the NASB and the loose versions like NIV. Ultimately these translation committees were never focused solving the translation debate and if they appear to be concerned, remember that they are crying their way to the bank!
The use of tradition in translations
One problem I have encountered with translation philosophy, is that there is the fantasy that we are translating the Bible in a vacuum, as if we are the first people to introduce the Bible to a new generation. The fact is, even the authorized version had this issue. There were several versions before and everyone recognized the predecessor: even Wycliff New Testament recognized the Latin Vulgate prior to it. A translation has to first reflect the original Greek and Hebrew. Yet there is the secondary concern of the understanding of the text in the native tongue in our case English. Most western society is familiar with the Bible, when a society has a recognized version and the new translation argues alternative words has a recognized version and the new translation argues alternative words there is the immediate implication of the former translation being false.
Now as previously stated, I do not argue for the Ruckmanite view by which the older translation is flawless. But I do take the old motto "if it ain't broke don't fix it". If the translation was sufficient then. If a verse from the AV is still understandable today, and the word is accurate to the Hebrew and Greek, translators then, have no obligation to add or change the rendering or come up with an alternative. To do so causes confusion.
1 corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?"
This is why the first English translations always built upon one another, I wish we could do this today but clarity is apparently not as lucrative.
The case for literary beauty in translationThe Bible is not just a book for scholars, critics or theologians. The Bible is the Word from God to common men and women. It reaches and helps us to deal with aspects of everyday life and helps us by approaching things the way we would approach it as well as the way we would not approach it. Poetry putting a rhythm on life lessons to embed them upon the souls of the faithful readers. The KJV is colored by literary beauty because the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are also covered in this literary beauty, It hooks into every corner of our heart, so indeed that overtime it can change our heart. As noted by the translation prefaces the KJV is well attested with this quality.
Free From the bias of modern man.
As a whole, academia became dominated by naturalistic evolutionary philosophy, which invaded textual criticism early on, thus many modern translations portray that bias. However, since the theory of old earth evolution at the time did not exist, none of the AV translators could possibly be effected by it, therefore we have an unbiased translation. (in terms of evolution)
An obvious example of this is "tenniym" which is translated "dragons" in the KJV. The modern translators believed in evolution and assumed that dinosaurs died 70million years ago. Therefore, these dragons were purely mythological. Yet even the serious historians recorded accounts of dragons while the ancients did not have a word for dinosaur. but even the ancient paintings had these creatures sometimes identical with modern descriptions.
Here are examples:
33 Their wine is the venom of serpents, the deadly poison of cobras."
Psalm 74:13(NIV)13 It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters."
Isaiah 13:22 (KJV)
22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses,
and dragons in their pleasant palaces:
and her time is near to come,
and her days shall not be prolonged."
and dragons in their pleasant palaces:
and her time is near to come,
and her days shall not be prolonged."
Isaiah 13:22 (NIV)22 Hyenas will inhabit her strongholds,
jackals her luxurious palaces.
Her time is at hand,
and her days will not be prolonged."
So we see see here that the NIV translates tanin as cobras, monster and Heyenas. But the kjv translates the word consistently as dragon(s). If dragons are indeed Dinosaurs, then we know that the large variety of dinosaurs can fit all these contexts, both as sea creatures, scavengers and forest dwellers. This book is not focused on the subject of scientific creationism, but never the less, we are at time where evidence for dinosaurs dwelling with man is growing at a rapid pace. I would recommend for instance that you search Dr. Mark Armitage. An expert in microscopy, Mark while employed at UC Berkley unearthed the world's largest triceratops Horn. He then showed that under microscopic investigation the bone had soft tissue which could never survive 70 million years. Shockingly Mark was fired for his discovery, but in fact sued the college and won on the basis of religious discrimination!
"The two men most responsible for modem alterations in the New Testament text were B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries, especially as revised and updated by the Germans Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort, although they were Anglican officials and nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy, promoted racism, and even dabbled in spirit-ism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological liberals. Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee that produced the English Revised Version of the Bible, published in 1881. The corresponding American revision committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have favored the same manuscripts and assumptions as did those 19th century revisers. Schaff was twice tried for heresy by his denomination and taught at the very liberal Union Seminary. As chairman of the revision committee, Schaff not only was greatly influenced by Westcott and Hort, but also by the Unitarians Ezra Abbot and Joseph Thayer, of Harvard, as well as other liberals whom he placed on the committee."
"In any case, one of the serious problems with almost all modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible heavily influenced by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible."
Henry M. Morris ( the father of modern scientific creationism) "A Creationists Defense of the King Jame Bible"
What is Flesch-Kincaid readability?
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator
"Developed by Rudolf Flesch and J. Peter Kincaid, the Flesch-Kincaid readability scores are the most widely used measures of readability. And they are used by the United States military to evaluate the readability of their manuals.
The first number, Flesch-Kincaid reading ease, is based on a ranking scale of 0-100, and the higher your score, the better. Low scores indicate text that is complicated to understand. So if your website receives a low Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score, you will likely need to simplify your text.
For most business writing, a score of 65 is a good target, and scores between 60 and 80 should generally be understood by 12 to 15 year olds.
Flesch-Kincaid reading ease formula: 206.835 - 1.015 x (words/sentences) - 84.6 x (syllables/words).
The second number, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, tells you the American school grade you would need to be in to comprehend the material on the page.
As a measure, most of your writing should be able to be understood by students in seventh grade.
For example, The Huffington Post’s website has an average grad level of about 7, meaning that it should be easily understood by 12 to 13 year olds.
Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula: 0.39 x (words/sentences) + 11.8 x (syllables/words) - 15.59.
Both Flesch-Kincaid reading ease and grade level use the same core metrics: word length and sentence length. But they correlate inversely. If you receive a high score on the reading ease test, you should receive a lower grade level score."https://www.webpagefx.com/tools/read-able/flesch-kincaid.html
|“The best example of very easy prose (about 20 affixes per 200 words) is the King James Version of the Bible...”Dr. Rudolf Flesch |
The Art of Plain Talk (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946). Rudolph is also famous for his book "Why Johnny Can't read."
"While Shakespeare used a vocabulary of roughly 21,000 English words, the vocabulary of the King James Bible is composed of only 6,000 (Albert Cook, The Authorized Version of the Bible and Its Influence, 1910). This compares favorably to the vocabulary of the Hebrew Old Testament, which is 5,642 words, and the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, which is about 4,800 words." missionary W.O. Cloud
“The entire KJV averages 1.31 syllables and 3.968 letters per word. This word length puts the KJV in the same readability category as the children’s books” (D.A. Waite, Jr., The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version, Bible for Today, Collingswood, NJ, 1996).
KJV AvailabilityQuite frankly, there are more KJV Bibles than any other translation in history. Actually there are more KJV Bibles than any other books in history! If God is in charge of all things why wold he make this the number one book in the world? Importantly there is no copywrite law restricting the Authorized Version and as a result anyone can make copies.
Some time ago, I was in Cincinatti and I found a pamplet at my uncle's
church who was not a kjvo guy, but had been helping a local Bible
printing facility do their missions, Their name was Bearing Precious
Seed. This little church had personally printed 45,000,000 Bibles and
they specialized in foreign language bibles (First Baptist Church) in
the town of Milford Ohio had done a lot "Since 1973, this local church
ministry has printed millions of Bibles and scripture portions in 42