----- Original Message -----
From: "george murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: Troy's two cents.
> On the contrary, it is a completely absurd position. Since the
> "reception" of TR & the translation of KJV,
> a) we've found manuscripts that weren't available then,
> b) we know a lot more about the cultures in which the Bible was
written,
> and
> c) we know the biblical languages better.
> In addition, the English language has changed greatly since 1607 so that
use of
> KJV in some places just doesn't communicate with many English speaking
persons
> today.
>
> This is not to deny that in specific places the rendering of KJV
is
> superior to that of many modern translations or that its literary quality
(for
> those sufficiently familiar with late 16th century English) better. But
there is
> absolutely no basis for the notion that it is intrinsically more
authoritative
> than, e.g., RSV or NIV.
>
>
> Shalom,
Mr. Murphy (et. al.)
I really didn't wish to debate it, but upon being dubbed "absurd," (whether
it was meant to describe my person or my decision makes no difference to
me,) I feel some clarification is in order. As a scientist, naturally I did
some extensive research before coming to a personal decision. Part of the
information uncovered in my investigation showed that:
a) The Authorized Version of 1611 is definitely not written in the
colloquial language of the day. It's syntax and verbiage is unique even for
its own period.
b) Those troublesome thou's and thee's, ye's and you's offer insight into
the subjects and objects, particularly the number of people addressed.
c) Every single modern test renders the KJV at a significantly lower reading
level than any of the translations.
d) The authenticity of many later discovered manuscripts is questionable.
As personal notes:
a) I am not convinced that we (society on the whole) know more about ancient
culture than did men whom I believe to have been led by God to translate
scripture.
b) I am definitely not convinced that the original languages are better
understood today.
c) Do you really mean to imply that upon sitting down and attempting to read
the KJV that you've not understood it? It's not Beowulf. It's not Die
Niebelungenlied. It's the King James Bible, used for years as the reading
primer for great (and relatively modern) scholars in their infancy. My four
year old son reads from it You don't know what concupiscence is? Never
heard of mantles, wimples, and crisping pins? Look it up. But do we really
have to be scholars of late 16th century English to understand, for example,
"David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam: and when
his brethren and all his father's house heard it, they went down thither to
him."?
d) I discovered literally hundreds of examples from all translations that
contain words which are sesquipedarian (like that one) in which the KJV
offers synonymous, yet common words. Examples? Matt 16:27 recompense
(NASB) vs. reward (KJV). John 7:6 opportune (NASB) vs. ready (KJV)
e) I believe that the original autographs of scripture were inspired by God.
I believe that they are completely authoritative. I also believe that they
have been destroyed. Not one shred of any of it remains. If God did not
preserve his word, then he is a liar and a fruitcake, and I want no part of
him. (Psalm 12:6-7). If he did preserve his word, then it is here. Now
where is it? I have made my choice. If you don't like my choice, lump it,
or blow it out your ear for all I care.
f) Incidentally, crisping pins are hair curlers. Not the handbags of the
RSV, and certainly not the black void of nothingness that the NIV offers in
place of the second half of Isaiah chapter three.
g) Tact is a virtue.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 22:22:09 EST