Is This a NEW New King James? - By David W. Daniels

[FSSL]

... but translations that are "easier to understand" are coming out all the time.

Why is this a problem? It was the approach of the NT writers to present the word of God in a very understandable form of their language.

It's not a problem. The problem is the steady decline of reading comprehension in America. The solution to that is not to come out with a new version of the Bible every year; the solution is to bring the reading levels back up to where they need to be.

Where does your idea that the language of Scripture is not supposed to be easy to understand?

If I understand your question correctly, my answer would be - where did I say or even imply that?

Because you said so and your point is that you do not like new translations coming out every 30 years.

You do realize that before the KJV, without all of our current computerized advances, many translations were produced in a short period of time.

I advocate for a new translation whenever meanings change. That means 30 years is perhaps a bit too long.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

[quote author=Citadel of Truth]Since when did God's children require scientific research?

You should probably trade in your car for a chariot, give up clean water,  stop using modern medicine,  cut the power lived to your house,  for that matter abandon your house with its modern innovations,  remove yourself from the internet,  never fly anywhere,  stop using phones... [/quote]

You should probably resist the urge to make such ridiculously irrelevant statements. Not requiring scientific research to confirm or deny an issue is not even closely related to appreciating modern technology.

I know you feel an obligation to jump in and assist your forum pals, but when you do so, please try to do so intelligently.    8)

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Citadel of Truth]Since when did God's children require scientific research?

You should probably trade in your car for a chariot, give up clean water,  stop using modern medicine,  cut the power lived to your house,  for that matter abandon your house with its modern innovations,  remove yourself from the internet,  never fly anywhere,  stop using phones...

You should probably resist the urge to make such ridiculously irrelevant statements. Not requiring scientific research to confirm or deny an issue is not even closely related to appreciating modern technology.

I know you feel an obligation to jump in and assist your forum pals, but when you do so, please try to do so intelligently.    8)[/quote]

"Not requiring scientific research to confirm or deny an issue is not even closely related to appreciating modern technology"

Do you know nothing about the scientific process? You do know that it's what makes modern technology possible,  right?

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Where does your idea that the language of Scripture is not supposed to be easy to understand?

If I understand your question correctly, my answer would be - where did I say or even imply that?

Because you said so and your point is that you do not like new translations coming out every 30 years.

Here is what I said: "We do not need to keep updating the Bible, we need to quit "dumbing down" our English. After 30 years, the NKJV is still very understandable. In fact, after 403 years, the KJV is still very understandable. The problem is our reading levels have dropped off the charts in the last 4 decades."

I could have said the sentence I highlighted a bit better. I can clearly see how you would arrive at your conclusions as to my intent. My intention was not to say that the new translations are "dumbed down," as much as I intended to say that our ability to comprehend English over the past 4 decades has been in serious decline; and, if that were not the case, the translations we've had for decades (KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, NIV etc.) would still be very understandable to Americans as a whole.

I am 100% for a Bible that everyone can understand. I suppose that a language can evolve to such a degree that words change, or adopt a secondary meaning every 2nd or 3rd generation. I would not be opposed to an update when necessary.   

 

[Citadel of Truth]

"Not requiring scientific research to confirm or deny an issue is not even closely related to appreciating modern technology"

Do you know nothing about the scientific process? You do know that it's what makes modern technology possible,  right?

You're right. I apologize. Before I typed this reply I called a science teacher and he confirmed for me that computers were, in fact, invented. I'm going to take a lunch in about ten minutes; I asked him also to confirm that automobiles were real. So, I have valid confirmation through scientific research for at least the next few things on my list.

Wait! I used the phone without scientific research to confirm whether or not it worked! This is going to be tricky... 

 

[FSSL]

Here is what I said: "We do not need to keep updating the Bible, we need to quit "dumbing down" our English. After 30 years, the NKJV is still very understandable. In fact, after 403 years, the KJV is still very understandable. The problem is our reading levels have dropped off the charts in the last 4 decades."

You are wrong. The KJV is NOT very understandable. Even the NKJV has its moments where it should be updated.

There are two different issues going on here:
1) American English is NOT dumbing down. It is going through normal language changes. "Whom" is no being replaced by "Who" and "builded" has been replaced by "built." "Thee" is now "You." These are not the result of dumbing down. "Built" is an irregular verb YET it replaced "Builded" the form we would have expected to become the standard. So, you can see that there is no systematic dumbing down. There are morphs based on usage over time.

2) Yes, we have a literacy issue. However, the modern versions are not adapting to the illiterate. They are adapting to this natural language change.

3) "Dumbing down" is KJVO propaganda, plain and simple. As you continue to overlook, Koine Greek was chosen over Classical Greek. If the KJVO was consistent, they would admit this and drop their silly "dumbing down" ideas.

4) As language naturally changes, we need to reflect that in the translations we use.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

You are wrong. The KJV is NOT very understandable. Even the NKJV has its moments where it should be updated.

All I can say is that I can understand both versions. I have a public high school education (granted, it was back when we started each class with prayer and the pledge of allegiance) with a degree in business administration. I'm no Einstein to be sure, but I have no trouble understanding either version.

Again I say, pick a version and read it...that's what is most important. 

 

[FSSL]

Did you grow up with the KJV? Did you use if for many years?

 

[bibleprotector]

There are two different issues going on here:
1) American English is NOT dumbing down. It is going through normal language changes. "Whom" is no being replaced by "Who" and "builded" has been replaced by "built." "Thee" is now "You." These are not the result of dumbing down. "Built" is an irregular verb YET it replaced "Builded" the form we would have expected to become the standard. So, you can see that there is no systematic dumbing down. There are morphs based on usage over time.

This is an admission to the fact that the KJB is comprehensible.

2) Yes, we have a literacy issue. However, the modern versions are not adapting to the illiterate. They are adapting to this natural language change.

The "natural change" is not something which a rudderless ship sails upon. The KJB does not change. The language CANNOT change to a point where the KJB is incomprehensible. God is in control. God is the God of language. He is not the author of new translations which come and go.

3) "Dumbing down" is KJVO propaganda, plain and simple. As you continue to overlook, Koine Greek was chosen over Classical Greek. If the KJVO was consistent, they would admit this and drop their silly "dumbing down" ideas.

References to "Koine" are modernist propaganda. The Bible was written by God's inspiration. It was Biblical Greek. Now we have it in Biblical English. To reduce its language to just common Greek makes it like any other book. This was one of the main views of the German Theologians.

4) As language naturally changes, we need to reflect that in the translations we use.

That is modernism in its simplest form: (1) God has no part, (2) man must alter things as (3) things are subject to natural change.

This is deism. I am certain that a Deistic view is at the basis of modern textual criticism and modern versions: they believe God was there to inspire, but then he just let everything be subject to natural laws, entropy and decay, and now humans must labour to keep it (the translation) "up to date" and recover it (the text) as best as possible.

 

[Ransom]

Since when did God's children require scientific research?

Why should I buy into your assertion that the KJV is more understandable?

I have practical proof. I understand the KJV. My children understand the KJV. My grandchildren understand the KJV. Who needs science to understand that?

If you think this is proof of anything, then you've at least proven your own point about the sad state of education.

 

[Ransom]

We do not need to keep updating the Bible, we need to quit "dumbing down" our English. After 30 years, the NKJV is still very understandable.

Tyndale New Testament: 1525
Tyndale New Testament, revised: 1534
Coverdale Bible: 1535
Matthew Bible: 1537
Great Bible: 1539
Taverener's Bible:1539
Whittingham New Testament: 1557
Geneva Bible: 1560
Bishops' Bible: 1572
Douay-Rheims New Testament: 1582
Douay-Rheims Bible: 1610
Authorised Version: 1611

Good grief, why did they have to go dumbing down the Bible so much in the 16th and 17th centuries? For a while they were publishing a new Bible every two years! They certainly didn't need that modern Authorized Bible when there was no shortage of good translations, did they.

 

[FSSL]

This is an admission to the fact that the KJB is comprehensible.

To those familiar with its language... sure.

The "natural change" is not something which a rudderless ship sails upon. The KJB does not change. The language CANNOT change to a point where the KJB is incomprehensible. God is in control. God is the God of language. He is not the author of new translations which come and go.

The KJV has changed. Your ship is imaginary.

References to "Koine" are modernist propaganda. The Bible was written by God's inspiration. It was Biblical Greek.

So... Plutarch wrote in Koine. You must believe that he wrote in biblical Greek. You wouldn't recognize a Koine Greek word from a Classical Greek word. Why do you jump into this as if you know?

That is modernism in its simplest form: (1) God has no part, (2) man must alter things as (3) things are subject to natural change.

Why do you no longer use the words "thee" and "thou" when you converse on forums? Are you denying God? Are you a modernist?

 

[subllibrm]

We do not need to keep updating the Bible, we need to quit "dumbing down" our English. After 30 years, the NKJV is still very understandable.

Tyndale New Testament: 1525
Tyndale New Testament, revised: 1534
Coverdale Bible: 1535
Matthew Bible: 1537
Great Bible: 1539
Taverener's Bible:1539
Whittingham New Testament: 1557
Geneva Bible: 1560
Bishops' Bible: 1572
Douay-Rheims New Testament: 1582
Douay-Rheims Bible: 1610
Authorised Version: 1611

Good grief, why did they have to go dumbing down the Bible so much in the 16th and 17th centuries? For a while they were publishing a new Bible every two years! They certainly didn't need that modern Authorized Bible when there was no shortage of good translations, did they.

Obviously driven by a vile profit motive. 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Since when did God's children require scientific research?

Why should I buy into your assertion that the KJV is more understandable?

Be careful, you're showing your own lack of reading comprehension. Where did I assert that the KJV was "more understandable." If you would have taken the time to read what I actually wrote, I said that the KJV is "still understandable." That is not a comparative statement. 

I have practical proof. I understand the KJV. My children understand the KJV. My grandchildren understand the KJV. Who needs science to understand that?

If you think this is proof of anything, then you've at least proven your own point about the sad state of education. [/quote]

It is proof. It is proof that the common man can still understand the KJV even in 2014.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Good grief, why did they have to go dumbing down the Bible so much in the 16th and 17th centuries? For a while they were publishing a new Bible every two years! They certainly didn't need that modern Authorized Bible when there was no shortage of good translations, did they.

I see 10 translations in 2 centuries. How many were there in the 20th century alone? Were they all necessary?

 

[Izdaari]

In fact, after 403 years, the KJV is still very understandable.

What scientific research can you point to that supports this assertion?

Since when did God's children require scientific research? I have practical proof. I understand the KJV. My children understand the KJV. My grandchildren understand the KJV. Who needs science to understand that?

Yes, those who were raised with it can understand it. I said as much. But do you care whether those of who were not raised with it, and weren't English majors can understand it? It doesn't appear so. Btw, my reading comprehension is generally very good. I was regularly reading books from the adult section of the library when I was still in elementary school. I did and still do sometimes read heavy academic tomes in economics, philosophy and theology.

 

[Ransom]

Be careful, you're showing your own lack of reading comprehension. Where did I assert that the KJV was "more understandable."

More understandable than is commonly assumed.

It is proof. It is proof that the common man can still understand the KJV even in 2014.

I know plenty of people who have difficulty with it. My anecdotal evidence supersedes your anecdotal evidence, and therefore the KJV is not understandable.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

...do you care whether those of who were not raised with it, and weren't English majors can understand it?

Yes, very much so.

It doesn't appear so.

I'd like to know what thread you're reading because you couldn't be more wrong. I'll say it again, this time with emphasis, "I don't care what version you choose, just make sure that you read it." Please show me how that is uncaring toward anyone.

I did and still do sometimes read heavy academic tomes in economics, philosophy and theology.

I don't hear the word "tomes" used very often these days; shouldn't you choose another word more easily understood? 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

I know plenty of people who have difficulty with it. My anecdotal evidence supersedes your anecdotal evidence, and therefore the KJV is not understandable.

Oddly enough, I can accept that.

 

[Izdaari]

...do you care whether those of who were not raised with it, and weren't English majors can understand it?

Yes, very much so.

Good!

It doesn't appear so.

I'd like to know what thread you're reading because you couldn't be more wrong. I'll say it again, this time with emphasis, "I don't care what version you choose, just make sure that you read it." Please show me how that is uncaring toward anyone.

That's good too. I'd missed that part.  8)

I favor the NRSV for a study bible, and the ESV for handy carry. And I like N.T. Wright's The Kingdom New Testament.

I did and still do sometimes read heavy academic tomes in economics, philosophy and theology.

I don't hear the word "tomes" used very often these days; shouldn't you choose another word more easily understood? 

I assumed you would know that one. My bad.  :-*