Troy Elliott Eckhardt wrote:
> ----- 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 said "it is a completely absurd position". Don't try to turn this
into a personal attack.
> 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.
I know of no justification for this claim.
Moreover, it's worth noting the questionable character of the mss upon
which one notorious feature of KJV is based, the Johannine comma.
N.B. I am not saying that KJV is "bad" or that it should never be used
today, let alone that it wasn't an excellent translation in 1607. What I said &
will repeat was that the claim that only KJV should be considered scripture in
English is absurd. That would remain the case even if I were to agree for the
sake of argument that it is, overall, better than other widely used versions.
The Johannine comma is a relatively small point but is a reduction ad absurdum
of that claim.
> 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.
The KJV men didn't have Qumran, Sinaiticus, Ugaritic, enuma elish, or
the great amount of koine material that we have now - to note just some items.
> 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."?
I grew up with KJV & have no trouble reading it. I know what "Mine eyes
prevent the night watches" (Ps.119:148) means but am sure that a lot of people
today, on hearing it, think it means "My eyes keep the night watches from
happening."
I needn't pursue this because the my point d was incidental to a,b & c
and demolition of the claim that _only_ the KJV is authoritative scripture in
English.
> 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.
The primary question should be about the meaning of charitim, not "
crisping pins."
> g) Tact is a virtue.
Presumably the type of tact that leads one to say "If you don't like
my choice, lump it,
or blow it out your ear for all I care."
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 17 2002 - 15:03:31 EST