tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post7338472757933341729..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Analyzing King James Version Revision or Update Arguments, pt. 2Kent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-54496569623627014592020-07-25T18:33:00.438-07:002020-07-25T18:33:00.438-07:00Just fyi, this post is not linked correctly in you...Just fyi, this post is not linked correctly in your "Preservation of Scripture and Versions" index. I'm sure it took quite a bit of work to index it all, so this is far from critical - I just thought you might like to know... Thanks for making all of them available!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-87045201356786834592016-10-12T17:50:12.137-07:002016-10-12T17:50:12.137-07:00"Mark L. Ward, Jr. said...
Kent, you're n..."Mark L. Ward, Jr. said...<br />Kent, you're not a hayseed that doesn't get it." <br /><br />This is what drives people who simply believe what the English tells them to reject these "scholars" who have made themselves into the Authority vs the Words we can read and understand. What haughtiness! This is typical of the BJU mindset. A pat on the head for people too ignorant to know all these people think they know about Hebrew and Greek. "When the pride of intellect reigns, sound scholarship becomes what the late David Otis Fuller called 'scholarolatry.'” Joe A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18369113591165470964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-64616383112687510092016-10-07T13:13:59.416-07:002016-10-07T13:13:59.416-07:00Mark,
This could be an entire different post, but...Mark,<br /><br />This could be an entire different post, but there are reasons why TR people are also KJV people besides that the KJV comes from the TR. Most of them are strong local church people, even local only in their ecclesiology. Not all. You'll find a similarity with strong confessional Presbyterians. It is an ecclesiastical text position. I recognize that they have different ecclesiology, the two, but that the church is the depository of the truth, also the means by which we know the truth. The church agreed on the text and that was the Holy Spirit working, same argument for canonicity, and consistent to see the two the same, since scriptural canonicity, you'll see is a canonicity of words. The King James has been the Bible for English speaking people. We shouldn't walk over that agreement of the churches. You don't talk in way like you understand that. I don't know if that is because you don't want to concede in any way or whether you don't really get it. When someone doesn't start with a scriptural bibliology, he will be prey to whatever opinion or movement is out there.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-78091186360258547802016-10-07T12:57:11.163-07:002016-10-07T12:57:11.163-07:00Mark,
When men elevate vernacular simplicity over...Mark,<br /><br />When men elevate vernacular simplicity over other considerations it can seem like they are accepting the trade-off I described, especially if that person has not fully engaged with the arguments of those who have elevated accuracy and precision for particular biblical reasons. I realize that you are doing just that and am thankful for your thorough and meaningful responses in this conversation. Most seem to have no desire to address the biblical arguments Kent has raised and that's why sometimes it seems, from my perspective, that translational priorities are so out or order.<br /><br />As for the use of "mortify," it is used in our day to demonstrate a <b>degree</b> of embarrassment or shame. Even outside of a religious context, I've never met anyone that didn't seem to get that saying they were "mortified" was equal to saying something like "if that happened to me, I would have died." Maybe there is a colloquialism involved (I do live in Greenville, SC), the word is still being used in such a way as to only have its meaning because of what it "meant". Plus it only took you two sentences to indicate the differences, so my original point stands that these types of difficulties are often overstated. By the way, I have no problem with using "put to death" as long as it accurately represents the underlying language.<br /><br />I just don't seem to run into folks who have so much difficulty with words of any sort. Maybe it's like you say that people just don't know what they're missing, but it doesn't seem like it based on the examples you've given of your own recent epiphanies. I've preached and taught in prisons and inner city complexes as well as backwoods trailer parks and never run into anyone who has raised a question about a word in the Bible that wasn't easily defined and understood quickly.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><i>But is the relationship between text and translation such that a belief in the TR requires exclusive use of the KJV?</i><br /><br />It depends on what you believe about the texts. If you believe the TR is unique in the way that it conforms to what the Bible says about itself, and the KJV is the best translation from that text, then the answer could be yes.<br /><br />I actually don't believe that the text issue can be separated from the translation issue. It is the subject of translation, so how could it be. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.<br /><br />Happy Birthday. :-)<br /><br />Jonathan Speerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948005615737546620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-48545307320432877792016-10-06T21:49:21.680-07:002016-10-06T21:49:21.680-07:00Kent, you write, "If English morphs past the ...Kent, you write, "If English morphs past the level of the Bible itself, we can't work that Bible to fit the culture. At some point, you say, 'No!'"<br /><br />What does that mean, brother? I honestly don't understand. Again, pretty much everybody in all the comments on your blog is talking in just the style of language I'd like to see in a translation of the TR. You personally, Kent, write with an English style and set of vocabulary words I'd be happy to see in my English Bible translation.<br /><br />Sure, the culture doesn't talk very much about a lot of things in the Bible: centurions, eunuchs, mandrakes, spindles, Pharisees. I'm not proposing modern equivalents for these words, because there are none. A contemporary vernacular Bible will still be unintelligible in many ways to a lost person with no Christian background. All I'm asking for is "broom" instead of "besom," and "you" instead of "thou." The Bible's English should sound basically like your English.Mark Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398684168648924493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-2867668764876522922016-10-06T21:30:46.128-07:002016-10-06T21:30:46.128-07:00Kent, you're not a hayseed that doesn't ge...Kent, you're not a hayseed that doesn't get it. And you carefully distinguish yourself from Ruckman in some important ways. And I don't see how translation and text are anything but separate issues. Sure, they're "related" like crows and uranium ions are related: they're both things in God's created world. But is the relationship between text and translation such that a belief in the TR requires exclusive use of the KJV? No.<br /><br />Jonathan, you write, "Why should one of the most important 'documents' of all be relegated to perceived simplicity at the expense of accuracy and precision?" It shouldn't. I have carefully distinguished my own view from that one (a view no one I know holds). I think we should retain difficult words such as "mandrakes" and "eunuch" and "propitiation," the last one for its doctrinal precision and the other two for their cultural accuracy. I'm talking about words like "besom" and "chamberlain" (which I just ran across in my personal Bible reading and realized that after 35 years [36 on Monday!] I didn't understand) and "abase" and "allow" (in the sense of "permit"). KJVOs want this to be a batter over doctrines; I just want a Bible translation that doesn't require me or the bus kids to look up words unnecessarily. I want a translation—of whatever texts you think are the right ones—into my own language.<br /><br />Regarding your "mortify" anecdote... That sounds like a perfect "gotcha," but it simply isn't. As Merriam-Webster will tell you (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mortify) "mortify" in the sense it's used twice in the KJV translation of Paul's letters is an "obsolete" sense. That pastor used the word "mortified" in the only sense in which it is now used in contemporary English. Only in religious contexts, especially those alluding to the KJV, does "mortify" mean what Paul meant (see also the NOW corpus here: http://corpus.byu.edu/now/). It's a useful word, and I hate to see it go. But I am willing to set aside my right to use the word I grew up with in order to communicate the truth to people who through no fault of their own have never heard the word "mortify" mean anything but "shame" or "embarrass." What problem do you really have with "put to death the deeds of the body"? If few people use the word "mortify," all people understand "put to death," and the two mean the same thing—why can't a translation say "put to death"? I'll bet D.A. Waite's Defined KJB—and countless explanatory comments from KJV-Only pastors—have used the phrase "put to death."Mark Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398684168648924493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-16988378605031366102016-10-05T10:16:57.150-07:002016-10-05T10:16:57.150-07:00Thanks Jim.
I think that I really try to understa...Thanks Jim.<br /><br />I think that I really try to understand someone like Mark, to try to see it in the most generous way to him, but I still arrive at something unhelpful at the least. I also try to see me in the worst way in this, asking if I'm really an unwitting Ruckmanite or hayseed that doesn't get it. And with those, I know that isn't true, but just a smear job. We've had every word in every generation, the KJV a translation from those words. The translation issue is somewhat a separate issue, and I say "somewhat" because it is related. There is a reason why even the ESV translators recently said, "We're done," this is the last edition, and in their case, even if they find new manuscripts. If English morphs past the level of the Bible itself, we can't work that Bible to fit the culture. At some point, you say, "No!"Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-19032899146811996302016-10-05T10:01:59.087-07:002016-10-05T10:01:59.087-07:00This comment probably belongs on the previous post...This comment probably belongs on the previous post.<br /><br />Mark was demanding that we forsake the KJV for any other translation, as long as it was more vernacular. He seemed to want another revision, did not care which text was used, as long as it was vernacular. (I hope I am correctly representing him in this)<br /><br />Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like the reasons behind the Revised Version of 1881. If memory serves, they were not supposed to change the Greek text, only update English words & clear up translation issues. Instead, they changed the text.<br /><br />At least for me, this is a very good reason to not want a vernacular update to the KJV.<br />I don't trust these people. I think that men like this have already caused catastrophic damage, all in the name of making it better & easier to read. Jim Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13264200652069763483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-49401562861784262152016-10-05T09:44:05.619-07:002016-10-05T09:44:05.619-07:00Jonathan,
Thanks. I agree.Jonathan,<br /><br />Thanks. I agree.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-46663434224202579472016-10-05T07:55:03.024-07:002016-10-05T07:55:03.024-07:00Kent,
You said:
I've written that we have se...Kent,<br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><i>I've written that we have several reasons for continuing to use the King James Version that far outweigh the difficulty of some outdated words. Those can be explained.</i><br /><br />I completely agree. We are regularly expected to know and understand all kinds of technical terms and jargon. We also learn new words daily from the earliest years of our lives. Why should one of the most important "documents" of all be relegated to perceived simplicity at the expense of accuracy and precision?<br /><br />I was in a church in another state earlier this year visiting with family in proximity to a funeral. Ironically, the pastor happened to be preaching from at least two different translations taken from the CT when he said something very similar to the following:<br /><br />"Don't be afraid of 'theological terms' like propitiation and atonement. If you can learn to order at Starbucks, you can learn a few theological terms."<br /><br />Obviously, he wasn't making the particular argument you are in regard to outdated words, but the same thing could be said about the few words in the KJV that are deemed to be archaic or outdated.<br /><br />I also once heard a pastor majorly overstate the "outdatedness" of the word "mortify" as it is used in the Bible. Again, ironically, in the very same message, he used the common phrase, "I was mortified ..." to describe his reaction to an event. Even though the usage wasn't identical, it made his initial treatment of both the word, as outdated, and the audience, as ignorant, seem all the more laughable.<br /><br />Mere anecdotes, yes, but still demonstrative of the ironies that exist when men speak from less than Biblically sound positions on the Bible.Jonathan Speerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948005615737546620noreply@blogger.com