The King's English Bible

Touchstone Magazine ^ | November, 2001 | Preston Jones

[FormerLib]

The King's English Bible

Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired
by Benson Bobrick
New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001
(379 pages; $26.00, cloth)

In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture
by Alister McGrath
New York: Doubleday, 2001
(340 pages; $24.95, cloth)

Have you, from time to time, seen a man fall flat on his face and lick the dust? I don?t mean to put words in your mouth, but, here in the land of the living, have you ever expected a man to go from strength to strength only to see him end up, perhaps because pride goes before a fall, succeeding only by the skin of his teeth? Or have you ever considered a person to be a mere thorn in the flesh, only to discover, once the scales fell from your eyes, that he was in fact the salt of the earth?

Whether or not you have had experiences such as these, you have almost surely heard or said the italicized phrases, and that?s because they are found in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, the Scripture translation that reigned among English-speakers from the mid-seventeenth through the late-twentieth century, when the New International Version overtook it at the sales counter. To this day, politicians say that they are "fighting the good fight," mothers tell their children to "turn the other cheek," and vacationers refer to their respective paradises as lands of "milk and honey."

Click on Source to read the rest of the article.

[FormerLib]

Having seen a number of posts concerning the Wycliffe translation, I thought others might find this review interesting.

[FormerLib]

I thought you might be interested in this.

[DeaconBenjamin]

What Wycliffe translation?

[FormerLib]

That would be the translation that John Wycliffe did in the late fourteenth century. They even include a short example of Psalm 23:1-2:
The Lord gouerneth me, and no thing to me shal lacke; in the place of leswe where he me ful sette. Ouer water of fulfilling he nurshide me; my soul he conuertide.

So, what denomination of Deacon are you?

[a contender]

Wycliffe translation? The KJV translators used the Texus Receptus, do you mean Tydales translation? He was burned at the stake by the Catholic church for putting the scriptures into the hands of the "commoner" and while he was burning he cried with his last voice "God open up the eyes of the King of England", that was around 1590. The very next King was "King James" and his first order was to translate the scriptures for the English speaking people. The Holy Bible was completed in 1611. Wycliffes transaltion was not the authority of the Authorized Version. The received text was used, the Texus Receptus.

[Burma Jones]

Actually, Tyndale was burned around 1536, in the reign of Henry VIII. Ironically, Henry authorized an English translation just a few years later; the Great Bible, as it was called, rolled off the presses in 1539-40. The King James Bible, which came out in 1611, owed much to the Great Bible, and to its successor, the "Bishops' Bible" of the late 1560s. And there were a few monarchs between Henry and James, though only one king. Henry was succeeded by his young son Edward in 1547, who was succeeded by his half-sister Mary in 1553, who was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth in 1558, who reigned until 1603.

[FormerLib]

"Born in the 1300s, Wycliffe criticized abuses and false teachings in the Church. In 1382 he translated an English Bible--the first European translation done in over 1,000 years. The Lollards, itinerant preachers he sent throughout England, inspired a spiritual revolution."

[a contender]

I know and have seen and read the Wycliffe bible. But to imply it was used to write the KJV 1611av is deceiving.

[a contender]

You are absolutely right. My date was from off the top of my head and I couldn't remember the exact time line. It was definatley long after the Wycliffe. Thanks Jones

[DeaconBenjamin]

Presbyterian Church in America

[RaceBannon]

The Great Bible came before the King James, so did the Geneva Bible, and both came after Tyndale

[FormerLib]

But to imply it was used to write the KJV 1611av is deceiving.

I don't believe the review implied that it was used to write the KJV. He merely mentions that the Wycliffe was the first English translation.

[BibChr]

The KJV translators used the Texus Receptus....

A popular misconception. Actually, the edition of Stephanus' Greek Text with this publisher's blurb attached (with no church or other authority whatever) was published after the KJV. Little-known, but true.

Dan
Help for Bible Students

[BibChr]

Yes, thank you, that's all true. As Luther's Bible reportedly formed and standardized the German language, the language of the Bible as translated in the KJV made an indelible mark on ours.

The issue of a lack of commonly-accepted translation is a vexing one. I recently read and very much enjoyed the new Holman Christian Bible New Testament, which has many fresh and more accurate renderings, but some puzzling practices as well (for no apparent reason, the Greek Christos is sometimes "Christ," sometimes "Messiah").

Joel Belz of the wonderful WORLD magazine suggested months ago that the then-future English Standard Bible might become the Bible used by Christians. I bought it as soon as it came out, and am generally very enthusiastic and hopeful about it. (See his article here, and our discussion board where a thread was started titled "New Bible Translation: check it out!" here.)

Dan

[RaceBannon]

We dont need a new English translation, we have the King James, all we need is literate readers! It was written so a 9th grader could read it!! Now, it seems that people dont understand something, and it turns out they never read or dont try to understand something that has nothing wrong with it!!

Another problem with all these translations is it makes people wonder if we DO have the word of God at all!! And, we DO. We have the most faithful translation into English, the King James.

[BibChr]

I'm very surprised to hear you say that, and most emphatically disagree. The KJV isn't a translation into our language at all, let alone a good one! No living people anywhere speak the language found in the KJV. And it isn't at all the most faithful translation available. In numerous passages, for instance, due perhaps to the state of understanding Greek at that time, the KJV obscures passages with affirm the deity of Christ.

As the NT and the OT were written in the language and dialect of the day, I think it's beyond rational doubt that we need genuine translation in our language. The only issue is which translations are more truthful and helpul.

Perhaps if you read the essay linked in my previous posting?

Dan

[RaceBannon]

I have read just the oposite about affirming the deity of Christ!! It was always the KJV that has upheld this when referring to the NIV, the RSV, the watchtower version, the Douey...

Where in the world did you read that the KJV denies anywhere the deity of Christ??

[BibChr]

My friend, read just a tad more carefully. I never said the KJV denied the Diety of Christ; I said that there are places where "the KJV obscures passages with affirm the deity of Christ."

And where I read it was in the Bible, not to be a smart-you-know-what. For instance, the KJV of 2 Peter 1:1 speaks of "the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," as if God and our Saviour [sic] Jesus Christ were two different persons. What Peter actually wrote in Greek was "the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ," thus calling Jesus both God and Savior.

Modern translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESB and on and on catch what the KJV misses here.

Likewise, in Titus 2:13, the KJV mentions "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," again as of two Persons. Paul wrote in Greek, however, of "the blessed hope and appearance of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Once again, what the KJV misses is caught by NIV, NASB, ESB, and most if not all other modern translations.

Or again take 1 John 5:20. The KJV says, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." The meaning of the last sentence is a bit obscure. In the English Standard Bible, which I mention above, the last sentence reads, "He is the true God and eternal life," making it crystal-clear that the apostle is saying that Jesus Christ is the true God.

So in closing yeah, I've heard that about modern translations denying the deity of Christ, and I've checked it out by the Bible, but really Race, it's baloney.

Dan

[RaceBannon]

But the term GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR does not mean two people, it means that both titles extend to him.

And as for modern versions catching on where the KJV misses, you need to go to this site IMMEDIATELY!!!!

There are at least 2 pages to this web site and this topic, the second page covers whether there are extra words in the KJV and explains NO!!

[BibChr]

Yeah, the KJV may indeed literally have "extra words," because they had access to far fewer and far older Greek manuscripts. It is dishonest of KJV-onliers to represent the issue as if moderns were simply casting aside words out of doctrinal bias, rather than adapting the rendering in line with the wealth of manuscript evidence we now possess. As if the KJV translators didn't use the best ms. evidence they had.

I'm disappointed in your response. You asked for passages where the KJV obscures the deity of Christ and modern translations don't, I gave you three. Do you care about the evidence? Or are you locked into a position that forces you to overlook evidence?

God spoke in Hebrew and Greek. When I'm readig His Word in English, I want the best translation in my language I can get. No one can argue rationally that the KJV fits that description.

Dan