King James Bible: How it changed the way we speak (and how it didn't)

Aye, of this needle ping.

Nice.

I’m sure there are more than 257 examples. Perhaps some of them are more in use by Bible readers, but that seems a low number to me.

I’m sure there are more than 257 examples. Perhaps some of them are more in use by Bible readers, but that seems a low number to me.

Remember that this is not about biblical sayings but about the King James Bible and the English language.

The real value of the KJV is the beautiful language that it has preserved, to the extent we are willing to keep it rather than succumbing to “modern” translations.

Some of the phrasing familiar now because of the KJV was taken over from earlier translations--some even from the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation (they may have had the New Testament only since the Old Testament wasn't published until 1609, although it had been translated earlier).

There were also a lot of Scripture readings which were familiar to people from hearing them in church, already before 1611--and even before the first English translations of the Bible were published there must have been many standard renditions in English of Biblical phrases from the Latin that people heard before the 1530s.

Such statistics take us back to days of old when this Bible was the daily reading of millions of people throughout the English speaking world, from Northamptonshire cobblers to US presidents - though not perhaps so far distant in the latter case.

I can't help but suspect that the author *thinks* that last remark was a witty slam-that he insulted US presidents by suggesting some actually read the Bible.

The real value of the KJV is the beautiful language that it has preserved, to the extent we are willing to keep it rather than succumbing to “modern” translations.

Yes, it appeals to the flesh. Greek doesn't have the equivalent to "high" English.

“but to look backwards to what earlier translators had done.” Earlier translators whose only concern was to translate the Bible literally”

Somebody missed the boat, here. The translators of the KJV were not that worried about what prior translators had done as being worried about using the current vernacular.

To those who stubbornly cling to the King James English, I point out that the Greek of the New Testament is NOT classical Greek. There were over 100 words which did not even appear in classical Greek. Until the late 1800’s Biblical scholars defended the notion that the difference was that the Bible was in “Holy Spirit” Greek. Then some archeological finds demonstrated that the Greek of the Bible is closer to “street Greek”; i.e., the Greek spoken by the common man. Thus it is now referred to as “koine” or common Greek.

So the writers of the New Testament chose to pen their letters and books in language which would be well understood by the man on the street, which included a large part of the population surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.

Arguments that the base Greek texts used for the translation of the King James version may, or may not, have merit. But I believe that there is adequate evidence that the Bible should be maintained in the vernacular of the times.

I am also not defending the use of paraphrases. But translations done in good faith, like the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, and even the English translation of the New Jerusalem Bible are all probably superior to the current use of the KJV.

All of my memory work is done in the KVJ, but I will have to “translate” for my grandchildren. :) So I, personally, have a lot invested in it, but I will not put that “millstone” around the neck of new believers.

Yes, it appeals to the flesh. Greek doesn't have the equivalent to "high" English.

Attic Greek.

For those who love the KJV and the English language:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Code-Bible-Literature/dp/0156027801

If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul it’s good enough for me. :)

· GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach · · join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert Google LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only?	Thanks decimon. The real sound of Shakespeare? (Globe theatre performs Shakespeare's plays in Shakespeare's dialect) [2005] shakespeare coined phrases Google Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·

I don’t know, but after studying five languages, including Latin, my thoughts about the KJV are: the scholars, probably mostly religious monks, who did the translating for King James obviously knew and understood the structures of more languages than most, like Latin, Greek and probably among many others. How could they be “translators” otherwise. Because of this, they understood the structure of the languages that the Bible was written in and used similar English structures to represent as close as possible the meanings in their translations.

For example, most non-English languages have many different words, spellings or forms for different things such as cases, genders, etc. Like it has been said, “Words mean something.” The difference between “thou” and “thee” were understood by the translators, as just one minor example, to differentiate the subtle meanings of what they were translating. And I think they tried to truly and accurately convey in their translation what was originally written in another language. Therefore they used the fine nuances of then English language, to try to capture the intent of the original. Probably not 100%, but I feel that that was the intention.

Translating the Bible into modern vernacular American English and idiom has done tremendous disservice to the original writings. Yes, I grew up with the KJV or the Douay-Rheims, but I’ve seen instances where the new translations say exactly the opposite of what the KJV says... and I’ve seen where very expert linguists have demonstrated those mistranslations.

Like it’s said, “Words mean something”. Exactly like the words of the US Constitution are clearly and exquisitely written to be understood by simply by reading them, not twisted and tortured into something that backs up some reader’s agenda.

If a reader of the KJV has no knowledge of any other language other than modern English- or “American”- they can and will get the “flavor” of what was meant by the authors of the Bible from the KJV language, without having to learn Greek, Hebrew, Latin or Aramaic.

I still hold that the KJV best expresses what those authors wrote. And another thing I don’t need is some Evangelical know-it-all, self-proclaimed minister “interpreting” the words for me and telling me what they mean and what I should believe. If I want to know, I open the Bible (KJV) and read. I may not understand it all, every word, but with a little imploring of the Holy Spirit, I think I’ll get the gist of it. And without any other’s agenda getting in between us. In other words, I don’t care what it means to you. I care what it means to ME.

>>> Has the KJB kept Christian language stuck in the 17th Century? “We thank thee, O God, for the manifest blessings that thou hast vouchsafed unto us,” is one example of such a passage. <<<

What’s wrong with that passage? I can understand the meaning of it very clearly and since it’s not the modern “Hey dude, thanks for the chow”, I appreciate hearing and saying it more in that “17th century way”.

>>> “It’s the last thing the translators would have wanted,” argues Simon Jenkins, editor of the Christian website shipoffools.com. “Ironically, at the time, ‘you’ was a more formal way of addressing someone, and ‘thou’ was more familiar, but they decided not to use any special grammar for God. He was ‘thou’ just like everybody else. <<<

Just how much credence do you think I’m gonna put in what a website editor of shipoffools.com thinks? Maybe he has multiple PhD’s in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, but unless that’s true, he’s just another fool as far as I’m concerned and his opinion means about as much. How would he know what the “translators” wanted?? Was he there? Did he take his “shipoffools” back in time to ask them? Have we got to the height of arrogance yet?

>>> “But when I was being brought up, people were still talking to God as ‘thou’’. it’s hopelessly antiquated and alienating. The translators made the right decision at the time, but what the church later did with it doesn’t convey that intention at all.” <<<

“Hopelessly antiquated”? I guess I was brought up hopelessly antiquated, but as much as I’d like to think of God as my friend and companion, His footprints in the sand beside mine as we walk in the sands of life, I just can’t feel that addressing Him in the vernacular “buddy” or “dude” is gonna show my respect nor gain His. ‘Course it just maybe that I’ve not boarded the “ship of fools” yet, either.

Looking over the past 60 years, I can’t help but feel that when I hear something described as or named “Modern Revised” version or “New Revised Version”, it’s coming from some liberal/Democcrat type that has very strong ulterior motives, none of which include MY wellbeing. I don’t want the “New Bible Lite” or “Modern Condensed” or “The Bible for Dummies” versions. I’ll open the KJV and read, thanks.

It just seems to me that the King’s scholars and monks didn’t have the same ulterior motives that modern translationists do.

>>> Perhaps the most intriguing reason for the impact of the King James Bible is that it ignored what today would be considered essentials for good translation. <<<

WHAT?? Pardon me, but I wouldn’t consider *today’s* essentials worth the paper they’re written on. Not from this yahu. (Look that up in the KJV)

>>> “The translators seem to have taken the view that the best translation was a literal one, so instead of adapting Hebrew and Greek to English forms of speaking they simply translated it literally. The result wouldn’t have made all that much sense to readers, but they got used to it, and so these fundamentally foreign ways of expressing yourself became accepted as normal English through the influence of this major public text.” <<<

I ain’t no expert on the English language of the 16th and 17th centuries, but this just seems to be an asinine statement. Everybody in the English speaking world didn’t speak the way the KJV does, so everyone changed their language to conform to the new Bible. Yeah, that’s sounds about right. NOT!

Anyone who has studied the various languages knows that there are different forms of “you”, depending upon the people conversing, written vs. spoken, and other elements. “Tu” in French has a different meaning and use than “Vous”, although both would translate to “you” in English. German, Latin, Russian: same thing as far as I know.

A child speaking to an adult in German will use a different word for “you” than an adult speaking to a child. The same adult speaking to a higher authority or ranked person would use the more proper, deferent term than when speaking to a family member or younger person. In fact, different terms, different endings, or even different words and their placement in the sentence of most languages will give certain meanings that are quite explicit to the person native to the language, but will often translate into English all the same way. They say that one of the reasons that Chinese is a difficult language is because the same word said in a different pitch or tone means different things.

This article really set my teeth on edge... oooops, that’s taken from the KJV isn’t it? Words, and how they are used, mean things. “Bless us, O Lord, and these Thy gifts, which we are about to receive from Thy bounty, through Christ, our Lord. Amen”. How antiquated! How contrary to the translators original intent! Yet how soothing, satisfying and simple that supplication is. “Hey, thanks Dude!” just doesn’t cut it for me, although I’m sure the “authorities” in this article would be perfectly fine with it... if they even thought to say it to invoke the Lord’s blessing. I doubt that they even do that.

>> The US statesman Daniel Webster said: “If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures.” Equally celebrated as a British orator, TB Macaulay said that the translation demonstrated “the whole extent of [the] beauty and power” of the English language. <<

Gee, can I take those guys as better authorities than the shipoffools guy? No worry. I will.

“Hey dude, thanks for the chow”

I'm sure it must be blasphemous to not capitalize that "dude." And that's all I have to offer.

But... but... but, that kind of thinking is antiquated and alienating. Not capitalizing the word shows how hip and happenin’ and modern we are. After all, capitalizing it would mean that we be talkin’ to someone we think is higher than us and that’s just... just... so... antiquated, dooood.

#;^)